Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash has denounced the “Bulldozer Justice” trend and the same is against the rule of law. 

What was the Background of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner, a senior journalist, addressed the unlawful demolition of his ancestral residential house and shop.  
• The road where Tibrewal's house was located was notified as National Highway. Before this, it was a state highway running from District Pilibhit via Bahraich, Balrampur and Maharajganj to Padrauna. 
• The Government of India sanctioned the widening of the existing road. A Detailed Project Report stated that the right way between KM 484 to KM 505.120 should be 30 meters. 
• On 2nd May 2018, an agreement was signed between the State Public Works Department and Mahakaleshwar Infratech Private Limited to execute the work. 
• Authorities claimed Tibrewal was among several people who had encroached upon NH 730 land. The state claims they made public announcements (Munadi) asking for encroachment removal. 
• Tibrewal's mother requested the District Magistrate not to demolish her house, citing a 1975 High Court interim order that required proper notice and statutory provisions for demolition. 
• Tibrewal's brother submitted a letter stating that he had purchased the house/land (registered as Abadi Land) and requesting compensation if demolition was necessary. 
• The authorities demolished the house after allegedly asking occupants to remove their belongings the previous evening. 
• The property had historical ownership documentation: 
  • It was purchased by Tibrewal's father through a registered deed. 
  • A registered deed of partition was executed in the family. 
  • The property was a two-storied ancestral house. 
• Days before the demolition, Tibrewal's father had reportedly demanded a SIT inquiry into alleged irregularities and corruption in the Rs. 185 crore road construction project on NH-730, which was published in local newspapers. 
• Multiple investigations followed the demolition: 
  • The National Human Rights Commission conducted an inquiry. 
  • The Commissioner, Basti Division conducted a separate investigation. 
  • The matter was also brought before the Allahabad High Court through various petitions. 
• This case essentially revolves around the dispute over whether proper legal procedures were followed in the demolition of the property and whether the demolition extent was justified under the road-widening project. 
• A suo motu Writ Petition was registered before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations:  
  • The State of Uttar Pradesh failed to produce critical documentation: 
    • No documents showing the original width of the State Highway (later NH 730). 
    • No material showing any proper encroachment enquiry or demarcation. 
    • No evidence that land was legally acquired before demolition. 
    • No documentation of the precise extent of alleged encroachment. 
    • No records showing the width of the existing road or notified highway. 
    • No justification for demolition beyond the alleged 3.70 meters of encroachment. 
  • The Court found serious procedural violations: 
    • The demolition was conducted with only a "Munadi" (public announcement). 
    • No written notice was issued to the occupants. 
    • No disclosure was made about the basis of demarcation. 
    • No information was provided about the extent of the planned demolition. 
    • Even for the allegedly encroached area, due process was not followed. 
  • The Court strongly condemned "bulldozer justice": 
    • Stated that justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. 
    • Warned of the danger of selective reprisal through property demolition. 
    • Emphasized that citizens' voices cannot be suppressed by threatening to destroy their properties. 
    • Stressed that a person's homestead represents their ultimate security. 
  • The Court established that while encroachments are not condoned: 
    • Municipal laws and town-planning legislation contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. 
    • Where such legislation exists, its safeguards must be observed. 
    • The constitutional right to property under Article 300A must be protected. 
  • The Court emphasized the need for accountability: 
    • Officials who carry out or sanction unlawful demolitions must face disciplinary action. 
    • Their violations of the law should invite criminal sanctions. 
    • Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. 
  • The Court mandated that any action regarding public or private property must: 
    • Be backed by due process of law. 
    • Follow proper legal procedures. 
    • Respect constitutional rights. 
  • The Court found the entire process followed by the State to be high-handed and without legal authority, necessitating: 
    • Payment of punitive compensation. 
    • Disciplinary action against responsible officers. 
    • Criminal investigation through CB-CID. 
    • Accountability measures for individual officials who violated the law. 
  • These observations reflect the Supreme Court's strong emphasis on due process, rule of law, and protection of citizens' property rights against arbitrary state action. 

What is the Rule of Law? 

About: 

• The term ‘rule of law’ is derived from the French word ‘le principe de legalite’ which means ‘the principle of legality’. 
• Rule of law, also known as supremacy of law, means that no one (including government) is above the law. 
• The rule of law is a legal principle that law should govern a nation against arbitrary decisions by government officials. 
• Every person is subject to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts of law irrespective of their position and rank. 

Dicey’s Concept of Rule of Law: 

• Professor A.V. Dicey is known to be the main exponent of the concept of the rule of law. 
• In 1885, he propounded three principles of the rule of law in his classic book ‘Law and the Constitution’. 
• According to Professor A.V. Dicey, to achieve the supremacy of law the following three principles must be followed: 
  • Supremacy of the law 
  • Equality before the law 
  • Predominance of legal spirit: the court should be free from impartiality and external influence. 

Rule of Law in India: 

• Constitution of India is the law of the land and prevails over the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive. 
  • These three organs of the state have to act according to the principles engraved in the constitution. 
• Under the Constitution, the rule of law is incorporated in many of its provisions. 
• Article 13 promotes the doctrine of Rule of Law in India. 
  • The “laws’’ defined under Article 13 as rules, regulations, byelaws and ordinances can be struck down if they are contrary to the constitution of India. 
• Article 14 guarantees the right to equality before law and equal protection of law. 
  • It states that no one shall be denied equality before the law and the equal protection of the law by the state. 
• In the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case, the Supreme Court has included the Rule of Law as the basic feature of the Constitution. 
• In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case, the SC in clear words observed that Article 14 strikes arbitrariness in State actions, ensures fairness and equality in treatment. 
• Another significant derivative goof rule of law is judicial review. 
  • It is the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments. 
• It not only protects constitutional principles but also checks administrative actions and its legality. 
  • In the case of Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951), the power of judicial review was established by the Supreme Court. 
• The powers of judicial review are delegated to the High Courts under Article 226 and Article 227 and to the Supreme Courts under Article 32 and Article 136. 

Case Laws: 

• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976): 
  • This case is also known as “Habeas Corpus case”. It is one of the most important cases when it comes to rule of law. 
  • The question that was raised before the Hon’ble Court was whether there was any rule of law in India apart from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• DC Wadhva v. State of Bihar (1986): 
  • The SC used the rule of law to decry state government which was too frequently using its ordinance making power as a substitute of legislation by the legislature. 
  • The Court ruled that the re-promulgation of ordinances was unconstitutional as the re-promulgation of the ordinances for a period of one to fourteen years without going to the legislation was a colourable exercise of power by the executive. 
• Yusuf Khan v. Manohar Joshi (2000): 
  • The SC has laid down the proposition that it is the duty of the State to preserve and protect the laws and that it may not permit any violent act, which may negate the rule of law.