ILLEGAL AND RETRIBUTIVE DEMOLITIONS OF HOMES

1. Context

The Supreme Court on November 13 underscored that it is unconstitutional to demolish a person’s property without adhering to the due process of law, simply on the grounds of their alleged involvement in a crime. A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan issued a slew of guidelines to prevent illegal and retributive bulldozing of homes and private properties of accused persons by States. Earlier, the top court had extended its interim order halting demolitions across the country without express permission except for encroachments on public land or unauthorised structures.

2. Recent demolitions scenario

In recent years, several states have witnessed an increasing trend of demolishing homes and private properties belonging to accused individuals. These demolitions have been defended as measures against encroachment or as actions targeting unauthorized constructions.
The practice gained prominence with the demolition drives in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri following incidents of communal violence.
This approach later extended to other regions, such as Nuh in Haryana, where clashes between religious groups in 2023 led the local administration to demolish numerous homes in the area.
Similarly, after communal riots in Khargone, Madhya Pradesh, houses and businesses predominantly owned by Muslims, labeled as “alleged rioters,” were razed.
A 2024 report by the Housing and Land Rights Network revealed that over 153,820 homes were demolished between 2022 and 2023, resulting in the displacement of more than 738,438 people across urban and rural areas.
Further, an Amnesty International report from February highlighted that, between April and June 2022, authorities in four BJP-governed states and one AAP-ruled state demolished 128 structures, primarily owned by Muslims.
The issue reached the courts through a series of petitions challenging the demolition drives in various states. These petitions, consolidated with one filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind opposing the Jahangirpuri demolitions of 2022, led to a significant court ruling.
On September 2, a two-judge Bench announced plans to establish nationwide guidelines to address these concerns, invoking its authority under Article 142

Court Ruling

The court emphasized at the outset that constitutional principles strictly forbid the demolition of properties belonging to individuals, whether accused or convicted, without adhering to due legal process.
It highlighted that such arbitrary actions by government authorities undermine the "rule of law" and erode public confidence.
Justice Gavai warned against the executive assuming the judiciary's role by imposing preemptive punishments, stating, “The executive cannot act as a judge, declare an accused person guilty, and then punish them by demolishing their residential or commercial properties. Such actions exceed the boundaries of the executive's authority.”
The judges also noted that these demolition drives often extend beyond the accused to inflict "collective punishment" on their families.
Justice Gavai argued that this violates the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21, questioning whether a spouse, children, or parents who live in or co-own the property should suffer penalties for merely being related to the accused.
Furthermore, he observed that targeting specific properties for demolition while ignoring similar structures nearby suggests a malicious intent by the State.

3. Guidelines

The court outlined detailed guidelines to enhance institutional accountability while clarifying that these instructions would not apply to unauthorised constructions or demolitions ordered by a court.
It emphasized that officials involved in unlawful demolitions would face disciplinary actions, contempt proceedings, and monetary fines. Additionally, compensation for wrongful demolitions must be recovered directly from the responsible officials.
To protect the rights of affected individuals, the court mandated that no demolition drive could proceed without providing at least 15 days' prior notice. This notice, delivered via registered post, should clearly outline the nature of the alleged unauthorised construction, specify the violations, and state the grounds for the proposed action.
The court further instructed that the property owner must be given a personal hearing, with the discussions duly documented. The final order should address the arguments presented by both parties and determine whether the unauthorised construction can be regularized or if demolition of the entire structure is necessary.
Before initiating any demolition, a detailed inspection report must be prepared and signed by at least two witnesses.
Additionally, the court required the authorities to videograph the entire demolition process. A comprehensive demolition report, including the names of all police officials and personnel involved, must be submitted to the Municipal Commissioner and uploaded to a digital platform for public access

4. Way Forward

The ruling is expected to make officials reconsider before unquestioningly executing political directives to demolish homes as a means of making a statement, he observes. He emphasizes that holding government officials personally accountable could act as a significant deterrent. However, there remains some doubt, as a culture of impunity might continue, especially since earlier judicial efforts to establish guidelines on issues such as hate speech and mob lynching have shown limited effectiveness

For Prelims: Article 142, Supreme Court of India

For Mains: Rule of law, accountability, and social justice

Source: The Hindu

Share to Social

UPSC Article

ILLEGAL AND RETRIBUTIVE DEMOLITIONS OF HOMES

Related Articles