Supreme Court’s Stand Against ‘Bulldozer Justice’: Protecting Individual Rights and Upholding Due Process

Context:

• The Supreme Court of India ruled against ‘bulldozer justice,’ stating demolitions based on accusations are unconstitutional.
• It mandated due process for demolitions and emphasized the importance of individual rights and accountability for public officials involved in unlawful actions.
• Case name: In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.

Supreme Court Judgement:

• Ruled against bulldozer justice.
• Demolition of property based on mere accusations is ‘unconstitutional’.
• Construction of a house is an aspect of socio-economic aspirations.
• House is just not a property but it symbolizes years of struggle and it gives a sense of dignity.

Five Critical Observations made by the Supreme Court:

1. Executive power must be restrained:

• Executive cannot pronounce a person guilty.
• The executive cannot become a judge and demolish the properties of the persons accused.
• It also erode the constitutional separations of powers.
• It leads to a state of lawlessness.

2. Due Process before Demolition:

• No demolition will be carried out without prior show cause notice and within 15 days from the date of the notice being served.
• Demolition proceedings be video graphed for accountability and transparency.
• Directions will not be applicable if there is unauthorized construction on public land or an order of demolition by the court of law.

3. Safeguarding the rights of Accused:

• Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional rights of individuals.
• The settled principles is accused is innocent till proven guilty.
• If the structure is demolished, then it is collective punishment on all family members which cannot be allowed under the Constitution.

4. Accountability for High-Handed Officials:

• Violation of these directions by officials attract the charge of contempt of court and prosecution.
• Such officers shall be held liable to restitute the demolished property at their own cost and also pay compensation.

5. Protecting Individual Liberty, Upholding Rule of Law:

• Failure to protect individual liberty can erode public confidence and can give way to lawlessness.
• Protection of individual liberty is also important for upholding constitutional democracy.
• Indian Constitution rests on the foundations of ‘the rule of law’, and such actions go against the ethos of rule of law.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s ruling against ‘bulldozer justice’ reinforces the fundamental principles of justice, individual liberty, and accountability within the framework of India’s constitutional democracy. By mandating due process, affirming the rights of the accused, and holding officials accountable, this judgement underscores that actions taken without a fair trial or due process erode the foundations of a lawful society. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the rule of law and protection of individual rights are paramount in a democratic society, where personal dignity, socio-economic aspirations, and the right to property are valued as cornerstones of freedom and equity.

Possible UPSC Questions:

1. Discuss the Supreme Court’s stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ and its implications for upholding the rule of law in India.
2. What constitutional principles are reinforced by the Supreme Court’s ruling against demolition based solely on accusations? Explain with relevant case references.
3. Analyze the concept of ‘due process’ as emphasized by the Supreme Court in cases of demolition. How does this contribute to individual rights in a democracy?
4. Explain the significance of accountability in public administration in the context of the Supreme Court’s ruling on unlawful demolitions.
5. How does the Supreme Court’s judgement in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures address the balance between executive power and individual liberty?