Summary
This case arose from a group of petitions brought under Article 32 of the Constitution for redress from the state demolishing their properties, both residential and commercial, without due process of law, under the justification that they were accused of criminal offenses. One petition arose from an incident on April 16, 2022, in the aftermath of a communal violence during a Hanuman Jayanti procession in Jahangir Puri. After the incident, Delhi BJP President Adesh Gupta requested the identification of those arrested and ordered the demolition of “illegal encroachments” in the community. Four days later, on April 20, 2022, bulldozers from the North Delhi Municipal Corporation conducted an anti-encroachment demolition drive razing shops, mosques, and residences in the predominantly Muslim community without prior notice. Similar petitions were filed from incidents in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Rajasthan, where after allegations of wrongdoing, residents had their homes and businesses demolished under the pretext of illegal construction or encroachment. Petitioners sought an order halting further action by the state on demolitions of this nature, and for strict action to be taken against officials who participated and may participate in the future by using state machinery for such demolitions. The state municipal governments argued that it was coincidence that some of the properties belonged to accused persons.
The Supreme Court of India issued its ruling in favor of petitioners and laid out due process protections for residents such as a prior notice of 15 days, an opportunity for a personal hearing in the appropriate forum, an opportunity to appeal a final order, and to have the demolition videographed. In cases where the residents do not contest the demolition, the Court still said they needed to be given adequate time to vacate and get their affairs in order before demolitions could proceed. The Court clarified that these directions do not apply to: (1) unauthorized structures in public places such as roads, streets, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies; and (2) cases where demolition has been ordered by a court of law.
The Court concluded that the separation of powers, the doctrine of public trust, the rights of the accused, the right to shelter, and the principle against collective punishment all required the executive to follow due process of law before taking action to remove allegedly illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures. The Court connected petitioner’s right to shelter with the fundamental right for dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 300A of the Constitution says that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” The Court stated, “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.”
Additionally, the Court directed that there will be a presumption of malice and a demolition will be presumed punitive and illegal if it is: (a) triggered by the resident’s or family member’s involvement in a criminal case; (b) the authority acts with undue haste after involvement in criminal case; or (c) the authority selectively targets a property while ignoring neighboring properties with similar violations. The Court also warned that violations of these directions could be met with contempt proceedings, prosecution, payment of restitution, and damages to the affected parties.
