The Crossbill Team
The Supreme Court has issued a stern critique of the increasing use of “bulldozer justice” by state authorities, where demolition of homes is used as punitive action against individuals allegedly involved in criminal activity.
A bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that such actions must be preceded by due process and warned against bypassing legal safeguards in the removal of illegal encroachments or unauthorized structures.
"Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter," the Court asserted, reported Live Law.
The Court cautioned that unlawful state actions risk turning property demolitions into targeted reprisals and condemned any intimidation tactics that silence citizens through threats to destroy their homes.
"Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads," Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying.
These remarks were part of one of CJI Chandrachud’s final judgments before his retirement.
The Court was responding to a case brought by a senior journalist, Manoj Tibrewal Akash who alleged that his ancestral home in Uttar Pradesh had been demolished without notice, purportedly in retaliation for a critical news report.
The state claimed the house stood on land designated as a national highway, but the Court found the demolition process arbitrary and ordered an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the journalist.
The Court underscored that while unlawful encroachments must be addressed, demolitions must follow prescribed legal procedures. It highlighted that municipal and town-planning laws provide structured methods for handling encroachments, and officials must adhere to these safeguards.
Additionally, the judgment called for accountability for officials who undertake or authorize such punitive demolitions. It provided a series of steps to guide state authorities on appropriate procedures before proceeding with property removal for purposes such as road widening.
In related cases, another Supreme Court bench (Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan) reserved judgment on petitions challenging punitive demolitions, having previously issued an interim stay on demolitions nationwide unless sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, a separate bench (Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti) emphasized that alleged criminal involvement does not justify the demolition of legally constructed properties, underscoring the need to protect citizens’ rights within a lawful framework.
A bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that such actions must be preceded by due process and warned against bypassing legal safeguards in the removal of illegal encroachments or unauthorized structures.
"Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter," the Court asserted, reported Live Law.
The Court cautioned that unlawful state actions risk turning property demolitions into targeted reprisals and condemned any intimidation tactics that silence citizens through threats to destroy their homes.
"Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads," Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying.
These remarks were part of one of CJI Chandrachud’s final judgments before his retirement.
The Court was responding to a case brought by a senior journalist, Manoj Tibrewal Akash who alleged that his ancestral home in Uttar Pradesh had been demolished without notice, purportedly in retaliation for a critical news report.
The state claimed the house stood on land designated as a national highway, but the Court found the demolition process arbitrary and ordered an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the journalist.
The Court underscored that while unlawful encroachments must be addressed, demolitions must follow prescribed legal procedures. It highlighted that municipal and town-planning laws provide structured methods for handling encroachments, and officials must adhere to these safeguards.
Additionally, the judgment called for accountability for officials who undertake or authorize such punitive demolitions. It provided a series of steps to guide state authorities on appropriate procedures before proceeding with property removal for purposes such as road widening.
In related cases, another Supreme Court bench (Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan) reserved judgment on petitions challenging punitive demolitions, having previously issued an interim stay on demolitions nationwide unless sanctioned by the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, a separate bench (Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti) emphasized that alleged criminal involvement does not justify the demolition of legally constructed properties, underscoring the need to protect citizens’ rights within a lawful framework.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment