Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/supreme-court-frames-guidelines-demolitions-15-day-notice-video-recording-2632614-2024-11-13

Context:

The Supreme Court established guidelines to prevent the government from demolishing homes and private property "only on the basis that they are accused of a crime."

Supreme Court’s new Guidelines on demolitions

The Supreme Court mandates a 15-day notice period to allow residents or property owners to challenge the demolition order or make necessary arrangements. The notice should also include the reasons for demolition and the date of the hearing for challenging it. 

Violating the guidelines may result in contempt charges, compensation, or even restitution costs borne by the officials ordering the demolition.

The decision requires all states and UTs to implement the guidelines to ensure uniform compliance to legal protocols during demolition. Copies of the decision were distributed to chief secretaries across the country to ensure nationwide compliance.

Supreme Court listed six mandatory steps before demolition No demolition is permitted without a show cause notice and sufficient time to respond. Notices must be served through registered mail and affixed to the structure. The notice should include information about the violation, the documents required, and the date of the hearing. If demolition is to take place, authorities must hold a personal hearing and explain why. Demolition actions must be recorded, and a detailed report must be created. A digital portal should be created to increase transparency in the process.

The Court clarified that the directives would not apply to unauthorized structures in public places (such as roads, footpaths, or railway lines) or in cases where a court has ordered demolition. 

Why did the Supreme Court issued these guidelines?

The Supreme Court issued these guidelines because demolitions based solely on allegations violate accused individuals' constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence. 

Arbitrary demolitions violate both the constitutional right to property under Article 300A and the right to life and liberty, and the right to shelter guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

What is "Bulldozer Justice"?

"Bulldozer Justice" is the term used to describe the practice of immediately punishing suspected rioters or protestors by destroying their property, such as homes or stalls, with bulldozers. State authorities frequently execute this action without following the proper legal procedure.

Concern

Emotional and financial impact on families, including innocent members who had no involvement in the alleged crimes.

Demolitions disproportionately affect minority and vulnerable communities, increasing social inequalities.

The use of bulldozers without due process erodes public trust in the political and legal systems.

Important case related to Property Rights In Maneka Gandhi v/s Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court stressed that any procedure that deprives a person of their rights must be just, fair, and non-arbitrary. In Olga Tellis v/s Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), the Court ruled that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to a livelihood and shelter, making arbitrary demolitions unconstitutional. In K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka (2011), the Court held that the confiscation of property under Article 300A must be just, fair, and reasonable.

Way Forward 

Using demolitions as a tool for immediate punishment creates a dangerous precedent because it allows the authorities to bypass the judiciary, which compromises the rule of law by eliminating the need for judicial oversight and due process. Quick demolitions may be justified as a mechanism for reducing communal tension or addressing serious crimes, but without proper legal procedures, they erode public trust in the judiciary.

Must Read Articles: 

DEMOLITION IN THE EYES OF LAW

Source: 

Indian Express

PRACTICE QUESTION Q.Consider the following statements: 1. Article 300A of the Constitution guarantees the right to own property was added by the 44th Amendment. 2. The Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v/s State of Gujarat case held that the Right to property is only a constitutional right. Which of the above statements is/are correct? A) 1 only B) 2 only C) Both 1 and 2 D) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: C Explanation: Statement 1 is correct: The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from Part III of the Constitution. The Amendment repealed Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. The right to property is now a legal right under Article 300A. Statement 2 is correct: In the Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v/s State of Gujarat case (1995), the Supreme Court held that the Right to property under Article 300A is not a basic structure of the Constitution. It is only a constitutional right.