Demolition of Illegal Properties: A Legal Perspective

Author: Soumyadeep Jash, a student at National Law University Odisha

Introduction

The issue of demolition of illegal properties has emerged in India, questioning governance, justice, and the rule of law. While authorities argue that such measures are necessary to maintain order, critics bring out the likelihood of power misuse and a violation of constitutional rights. This article explores the latest judgment from the Supreme Court on this issue, probing its impact on legal frameworks, individual rights, and governance.

Abstract

The Supreme Court of India’s judgment that seeks to answer growing concerns about the misutilization of state power, lately, on demolition of illegal properties is against “bulldozer justice” that refers to demolitions of the houses of crime accused persons by ignoring the legal process in its way. It insists upon the importance of due process, fundamental rights, and accountability in governance. This article goes into crucial details of the judgment, providing legal basis, implications for its relevance in the broader context of jurisprudence in India.

Context and Background

In recent years, there has been an increase in the demolition of properties of individuals who are being charged with various crimes across many states. On the one hand, advocates consider this as a means of deterrence for unlawful acts; on the other hand, critics find this practice an extrajudicial punishment that deviates from conventional legal processes.

This trend has elicited severe backlash from civil society, legal experts, and human rights organizations, who argue that such practices usually target vulnerable groups and defeat the principles of justice and fairness. The intervention by the Supreme Court in this matter reflects the need to uphold the rule of law and protect constitutional rights.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment on the demolition of illegal properties includes the following crucial points:

  1. Condemnation of Arbitrary Actions: 
  • The Court criticized the practice of demolishing properties without adhering to legal procedures, terming it a violation of fundamental rights.
  1. Guidelines for Demolitions: 
  • Prior Notice: Authorities must issue proper notice to affected individuals, allowing them to present their case.
  • Documentation: Comprehensive records must be maintained, justifying the demolition.
  • Legal Procedures: Actions should be in accordance with the statutory provisions and judicial orders.
  • Human Treatment: Demolitions should be carried out in a manner that respects the dignity and rights of individuals.
  1. Accountability and Oversight:
  • The Court emphasized accountability in administrative actions, directing authorities to ensure transparency and oversight.
  1. Reaffirmation of Fundamental Rights:
  • The judgment underscored that every citizen, irrespective of allegations against them, is entitled to fundamental rights, including protection from arbitrary state actions.

Implications of the Judgment:

The judgment has implications for various stakeholders:

For Citizens:

  • It provides a safeguard against arbitrary demolitions, protecting individual rights and dignity.
  • It highlights the importance of due process and access to justice.

For Legal Frameworks:

  • It strengthens the position of the judiciary in upholding constitutional values and the rule of law.
  • It acts as a precedent for such issues to be addressed in the future.

For Governance:

  • It establishes a clear framework for ensuring accountability in administrative actions.
  • It discourages the misuse of power by authorities, reinforcing the principles of fairness and justice.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

The judgment by the Supreme Court has much more social and economic implications, though it is beyond the legal scope. Demolitions mean the dislocation of families that can cause immense psychological as well as humongous financial suffering to them. Vulnerable sections such as women, children, and the elderly are particularly targeted, as they find themselves without support structures for building their lives again.

The economic impact of such actions is also profound. Small businesses and informal sector workers often lose their livelihoods when their properties are demolished. This not only affects individual families but also disrupts local economies and community structures. By emphasizing due process and humane treatment, the judgment aims to mitigate these adverse effects.

Role of Media and Public Perception

The media plays a crucial role in shaping public perception of demolitions and the associated legal battles. Sensationalized reporting often portrays such actions as necessary measures against lawlessness, overlooking the human cost and legal nuances. However, balanced and responsible journalism can help raise awareness about the importance of due process and the rule of law.

Public perception, influenced by media narratives, often aligns with populist sentiments that demand swift and punitive actions. The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a reminder that justice must not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency. Upholding legal principles and protecting individual rights are essential for maintaining public trust in democratic institutions.

Legal Terminology

  • Due Process: The established judicial and administrative procedures guarantee fair treatment.
  • Arbitrary Action: The actions which are taken without reasonable cause or adherence to the law.
  • Fundamental Rights: The rights that are granted by the Constitution of India, such as equality, freedom, and protection from arbitrary actions of the state.
  • Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review the action of the executive and the legislative branches in order to find whether the actions are compliant with the Constitution.
  • Natural Justice: A doctrine of law that ensures the decision-making process is fair and not biased.
  • Proportionality Principle: It is a principle that any action taken by the state must be proportionate to its objective.
  • Remedies in Law: Legal remedies available to an individual whose rights have been violated. These include writ petitions, injunctions, and compensatory damages.

Case Laws

  1. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):

Known as the “Pavement Dwellers Case,” this landmark judgment extended the ambit of Article 21 to include the right to livelihood. The Court ruled that eviction without prior notice violated the fundamental right to life. It established that demolitions must be preceded by adequate procedural safeguards, including notice and rehabilitation plans.

  1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):

This case expanded the interpretation of Article 21, giving emphasis to the fact that the procedure established by law must be “just, fair, and reasonable.” Principles laid down in this case have been instrumental in protecting individuals against arbitrary state actions, including demolitions.

  1. MC Mehta v. Union of India (1987):

While it was an essentially environmental law case, in the process, it brought about significant procedural precedence’s for demolitions. Before demolitions could be carried forward, the Court instructed and directed authorities to ensure and comply with statutory and judicial mandates, thereby reinforcing procedures.

  1. Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981):

Under Article 14, hence, all administrative actions were required to pass the muster of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Arbitrary demolition, therefore, is unconstitutional.

  1. Supreme Court November 2024 Judgment on Suo motu writ petition registered in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash:

The recent judgment of the Court was quite explicit to the trend of “bulldozer justice” issued guidelines to curb the potential misuse of power by State authorities. Accountability, transparency, and due process were the words that reverberated throughout the judgment, which became a watermark for such judgments.

  1. Shantistar Builders v Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990):

This case brought out the right to adequate housing under Article 21 as a part of the right to life. The Court pointed out the need for humane treatment and alternative arrangements while demolishing illegal structures.

  1. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (2018):

Though unrelated to demolitions, this case has reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional rights against majoritarian impulses. This case reminds everyone that judicial intervention is a sine qua non for justice and fairness.

Conclusion

Thus, the Supreme Court has made an important judgment against the demolition of illegal properties that promotes justice, accountability, and the rule of law. By condemning arbitrary actions, it established guidelines that remind and recommit to the promise of protection of constitutional rights and democratic values.

This decision reminds all that governance must be on the basis of legality and fairness and that due process and transparency are not only important principles but the very essence of governance. As India remains to tackle complex legal and social issues, the role of the judiciary in protecting rights and rule of law stands paramount.

Besides, the judgment calls for a balanced approach that should respond to the twin objectives of upholding public order and safeguarding individual rights. Policymakers and administrators should strive to build mechanisms that are sensitive to the need for conformity with legal norms but least harmful to vulnerable groups.

FAQs

1. Does the Supreme Court Favor demolitions of illegal properties?

The Supreme Court has decried the demolitions in an arbitrary way stating that they are needed with due process and through due process.

2. Has the court made rules or guidelines about demolitions?

Some guidelines that are suggested are the issuing of notice before, maintaining records, doing everything in the lawful way, and being humane towards people who are going to be demolished.

3. What implications does this judgment have on the people?

The judgment ensures that arbitrary state actions are protected, and the rights of individuals are preserved, thus ensuring access to justice.

4. What does this judgment mean for governance?

It strengthens accountability, checks the misuse of power, and promotes transparency in administrative actions.

5. Which are some of the most important case laws related to demolitions?

Some of the landmark cases include Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, and the recent November 2024 Supreme Court judgment.

6. What is “bulldozer justice”?

“Bulldozer justice” is the practice of demolishing properties of accused persons without due process, which is often considered extrajudicial punishment.

7. What are the broader implications of this judgment?

The judgment sets a precedent for dealing with such issues in the future, strengthens legal frameworks, and promotes the rule of law.

8. How can media play a role in this context?

This helps media create more awareness about the issue of due process and responsible governance by bringing out the issues of human rights violation, thereby ensuring balanced reporting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *