Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

The Supreme Court has delivered a landmark judgment against "bulldozer justice," establishing that properties cannot be demolished solely because their occupants are accused or convicted of crimes. On 13th November 2024, the Court observed that such demolitions violate the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers, as only the judiciary can determine guilt. Setting comprehensive guidelines for legal demolitions, the Court mandated proper notice periods, due process requirements, and accountability measures for officials. This decision came after several cases where homes were demolished following communal tensions, especially in states like Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Delhi. 

What is the Background of the Issue? 

• The Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking protection against property demolitions. 
• The core grievance is that state authorities demolished residential and commercial properties of citizens accused in criminal cases without following due process. 
• The petitioners seek directions to prevent hasty action against properties of accused persons and demand action against officials involved in illegal demolitions. 
• The Supreme Court has heard this matter multiple times between September-October 2024. 
• On 17^th September 2024, the Court ordered that no demolitions can be carried out anywhere in India without seeking its permission. 
• This order excluded unauthorized structures in public places (roads, footpaths, railway lines, water bodies) and cases with existing court demolition orders. 
• The State of Uttar Pradesh disputed the allegations, stating through an affidavit that demolitions can only be done following legal procedures. 
• Main issue is whether the properties of the persons, who are accused of committing certain crimes or for that matter even convicted for commission of criminal offences, can be demolished without following the due process of law or not? 
• The Court proposed to establish "Pan-India Guidelines" to concerns and requested suggestions from all parties. 

What are the Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court on Demolitions ? 

Constitutional Principle 

• The executive cannot act as judge and declare someone guilty 
• Demolishing property based on accusations violates fundamental rule of law 
• Such actions are deemed "bulldozer justice" and represent abuse of power 
• The Court observe this creates a "lawless state of affairs" 
• Actions that bypass due process remind of a state where "might was right" 

Notice Requirement 

• Mandatory 15-day notice period from date of service 
• Notice must be served through registered post 
• Physical copy must be affixed to the outer portion of the structure 
• Timer starts from receipt of notice 
• Notice must be digitally logged with Collector/District Magistrate 
• Auto-generated email confirmation required for notice logging 

Due Process Requirements 

• Notice must specify nature of unauthorized construction 
• Must detail specific violations and grounds for demolition 
• Must indicate date for personal hearing 
• Must identify designated authority for hearing 
• Final order must contain:  
  • Contentions of the notice 
  • Authority's findings 
  • Detailed reasoning 
  • Assessment of whether construction is compoundable 
  • Justification if complete demolition is deemed necessary 

Digital Transparency System 

• Municipal authorities given 3-month deadline to establish digital portal 
• Portal must track:  
  • Service of notice 
  • Notice pasting documentation 
  • Replies received 
  • Show-cause notices 
  • Orders passed 
• District Magistrate must:  
  • Designate nodal officer 
  • Assign specific email address 
  • Communicate details to building regulation officials within one month 

Judicial Oversight Protections 

• 15-day minimum period to challenge demolition order 
• Applies even if local laws don't specify appeal timeline 
• Order must be displayed on digital portal 
• Demolition cannot proceed if:  
  • Appeal period hasn't expired 
  • Order is stayed by appellate authority 
  • Owner is actively removing unauthorized construction 

Selective Enforcement Safeguards 

• Presumption of punitive intent if:  
  • Single structure chosen suddenly 
  • Similar violations nearby are ignored 
• Court recognizes this as potential "collective punishment" 
• Emphasizes need for consistent enforcement 
• Protects against targeting specific individuals/groups 

Official Accountability Measures 

• Officials can face: 
• Contempt of court proceedings 
• Personal liability for restitution costs 
• Requirement to pay damages 
• Additional prosecution as applicable 
• Responsibility to rebuild at personal cost if demolition violated guidelines 

Documentation Requirements 

• Before demolition: 
• Detailed inspection report required 
• Complete video recording mandatory 
• List of all participating personnel (police and civil) 
• Report must be:  
  • Forwarded to Municipal Commissioner 
  • Posted on digital portal 
  • Preserved as official record 

Humanitarian Considerations 

• Special attention to vulnerable residents:  
  • Women 
  • Children 
  • Elderly persons 
• Sufficient time must be given for:  
  • Gathering belongings 
  • Making alternative arrangements 
  • Orderly evacuation 
• Courts emphasize avoiding overnight evictions 
• Principle that "heavens will not fall" if reasonable time given 

Exceptions to Guidelines 

• These rules do not apply to: 
• Unauthorized structures in public places:  
  • Roads 
  • Streets 
  • Footpaths 
  • Railway line areas 
  • River bodies 
  • Water bodies 
• Cases where there is an existing court order for demolition 

Implementation Requirements 

• All States/UTs must receive judgment copy 
• Chief Secretaries must be notified 
• All High Courts to receive copies 
• State governments must issue circulars 
• Local authorities must be informed of guidelines 

Are Demolition Drives by Municipal and Forest Authorities Legally Justified in Cases of Alleged Encroachment and Offenses Across Different Indian States? 

Rajasthan: 

• Recent Case:  
  • Location: Udaipur Municipal Corporation 
  • Incident: Demolished tenant's house claiming forest land encroachment 
  • Trigger: Tenant's 16-year-old son allegedly stabbed classmate from another community 
  • Notice: Issued by Municipal Corporation and Forest Officer just the night before 
• Legal Framework:  
  • Under Section 245 of Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009:  
    • Punishment for encroachment: Up to 3 years prison and Rs 50,000 fine 
    • Civic body can seize and confiscate property 
    • Written notice must be served with grounds for confiscation 
    • Offender must get reasonable time to make written representation 
    • Opportunity to be heard must be given 
  • Under Section 91 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953:  
    • Only a Tehsildar can order eviction of a "trespasser" 
    • Only Tehsildar can order seizure of illegally occupied land

Madhya Pradesh:

• Recent Case:  
  • Incident: Demolished ancestral home of a laborer 
  • Trigger: Son accused of placing bovine head in temple premises 
  • Timeline: FIR registered and demolition on same day (June 14) 
  • Issue: No notice served before demolition 
• Legal Framework:  
  • Under Section 187 of MP Municipalities Act, 1961: 
    • Municipal Council can remove/alter/pull down buildings built without permission 
    • Notice must be served to owner first 
    • Owner must get chance to show sufficient cause 
    • Demolition only if owner fails to show sufficient cause 

Uttar Pradesh: 

• Recent Case:  
  • Context: Demolitions after protests against Nupur Sharma's remarks 
  • Challenge: Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind approached Supreme Court 
• Legal Framework:  
  • Under UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (Section 27): 
    • Demolition order for land developed without permission 
    • 15-40 days notice period from order date 
    • Owner can appeal to development authority chairman 
    • Chairman's decision is final and cannot be questioned in court 

Delhi: 

• Recent Case:  
  • Location: Jahangir Puri 
  • Trigger: Communal violence after Hanuman Jayanti procession (April 2022) 
  • Action: NDMC's demolition drive for "illegal encroachments" 
  • Intervention: Supreme Court stayed demolition after Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind's plea 
• Legal Framework:  
  • Under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957: 
    • Sections 321 and 322:  
      • Commissioner can remove unauthorized items without notice 
      • Applies to stalls, chairs, benches, boxes, vehicles etc. 
    • Section 343:  
      • Buildings erected without permission can be demolished 
      • 5-15 days demolition period 
      • Must give "reasonable opportunity" to show cause 
      • Appeals allowed before Appellate Tribunal

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's guidelines now require authorities to give at least 15 days' notice before any demolition and allow people to challenge these orders. If officials don't follow these rules, they could face legal consequences and might have to pay for rebuilding the properties themselves. These rules aim to protect people's basic right to shelter and ensure fair treatment under the law. This judgment aims to protect constitutional rights while ensuring that any necessary demolitions follow a transparent, humane, and legally sound process.