The Supreme Court on Monday strongly criticized the practice of “bulldozer justice,” asserting that properties cannot be demolished simply because they belong to someone accused of a crime. For context, “bulldozer justice” refers to the controversial practice where state authorities use bulldozers to demolish the homes or properties of individuals accused of crimes, often without following due legal process. The Court emphasized that even in cases where a person is convicted, property demolition cannot occur without adhering to the due process of law. The Court indicated its intention to establish nationwide guidelines to address this issue.
During the hearing of several petitions challenging demolition actions taken by authorities against the homes of individuals accused of serious crimes, a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan questioned the rationale behind demolishing someone’s house solely based on criminal accusations. “Even if the individual is convicted, such actions cannot be justified without following the legal procedure,” the bench stated, as per LiveLaw.
However, the Court made it clear that it would not extend protection to any illegal structures that obstruct public roads. Justice K.V. Viswanathan further remarked that demolishing a house just because it is associated with a person accused of a crime is not the appropriate course of action, pointing out that even if a household member is involved in criminal activity, the property itself should not be targeted without due legal process.
The bench suggested that clear guidelines should be established, including requirements for issuing notices, allowing time for responses, and providing legal remedies before any demolition is carried out. This approach, the Court noted, would prevent arbitrary demolitions and ensure adherence to the rule of law.
The pleas before the Bench:
The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications challenging recent demolition actions by authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These pleas have been moved by the victims, Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh, whose homes were targeted. Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned one of the applications earlier in the day, requesting it be heard alongside the ongoing Brinda Karat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors case, which challenges the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri.
Two pleas have been submitted to the Supreme Court, seeking directions to prevent the Central and State governments from using bulldozers to demolish homes or shops of individuals accused in criminal cases as a form of extra-legal punishment.
One of the applications was filed by Rashid Khan, a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur, whose house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17, 2024. This action followed communal clashes in Udaipur after a Muslim schoolboy allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate, who later died from his injuries. The incident led to the issuance of a prohibitory order, after which vehicles were set on fire, and markets were closed. Khan, the father of the accused schoolboy, stated in his plea that his house was demolished illegally, arbitrarily, and with malicious intent in a rushed operation carried out by the Regional Forest Officer of Udaipur West, the Government of Rajasthan, and the Udaipur Municipal Corporation. The authorities claimed that the house had encroached on forest land. According to The Indian Express, the family received a notice from the forest department on the morning of the demolition, but the landlord failed to provide ownership documents. Despite attempts by Khan to stop the demolition by approaching the municipal corporation and the police, both were unresponsive. In a video that surfaced after the demolition, Khan, who identified himself as the landlord, mentioned that four other families also lived in the house and were asked to vacate. Khan expressed his anguish, stating that he lost his home without any fault of his own.
Similarly, Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh has also alleged that his house and shop were unlawfully bulldozed by the state administration. Both Khan and Hussain’s applications were filed in the context of a case previously submitted by Jamiat Ulama I Hind, which objected to the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh following communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.
A detailed report can be read here.
Arguments made during the hearing:
During today’s Supreme Court hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the practice of demolishing illegal structures, asserting that demolitions should only occur in compliance with legal standards. He emphasized that properties cannot be demolished simply because their owners are accused of crimes. An affidavit from the Uttar Pradesh government was also submitted, affirming that demolitions would be conducted strictly in accordance with the law.
“No immovable property cannot be demolished just because the accused is involved in a criminal offence and such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal,” Solicitor General Mehta said.
Justice BR Gavai responded positively to Mehta’s statements, indicating that the Court is inclined to establish guidelines based on this understanding.
“So if you are accepting this … then we will issue guidelines based on this,” Justice Gavai replied, as per LiveLaw.
He suggested that these guidelines could outline the procedural steps that must be followed before any demolition, including issuing notices, allowing time for responses, and providing opportunities for legal remedies.
“What you have said is fair. Why cannot such guidelines be passed?” the judge remarked, addressing the Solicitor General (SG).
Justice KV Viswanathan supported this approach, noting that the guidelines could address how to handle demolitions in a fair and documented manner, ensuring that actions are legally sound and not based merely on accusations. He stressed the importance of creating a transparent process to prevent arbitrary demolitions.
Mehta agreed that the guidelines should ensure that only illegal structures are targeted and clarified that temporary structures might need to be addressed promptly. He also acknowledged that the Court would not protect any structure obstructing public roads, even if it were a place of worship.
“we will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads … That includes a temple also. We are on broad guidelines so that there is no bulldozer tomorrow and so that it is documented and checked so that either side cannot point any lacunae … Demolition on any such ground of being an accused is not correct,” the Bench stated.
“That is not the way also,” SG Mehta said, in turn.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing Jamiat Ulama I Hind, cited a specific case from Jahangirpuri, Delhi, where he alleged that a house was demolished unfairly despite the tenant, not the owner, being accused of a crime. He described how officials had carried out the demolition despite a lack of proper authorization and sought additional personnel to continue the action.
“On April 16 permission was sought for protest … it was refused.. then also they did it and then the officials sought more men to demolish the properties.. Is this fair? … Imagine, the house of a tenant and not even owner of the property was demolished,” Dave argued.
Advocate CU Singh echoed concerns about similar demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Udaipur, where properties over 50 years old were demolished due to the alleged criminal activities of tenants or family members.
“They demolished 50–60-year-old homes. The home was demolished because son or tenant of the owner is involved (accused in a crime). One case is from Madhya Pradesh and one from Udaipur,” Singh said.
The Court decided to reconvene on Tuesday afternoon to review the matter in detail and invited suggestions from all parties to help frame comprehensive guidelines. Justice Gavai urged both sides to avoid turning the Court into a battleground.
“Mr. Dave, let us not turn the court into a battleground. We expect (this from) both sides,” Justice Gavai had said.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Mehta and Senior Advocate Dave had exchanged remarks on the proceedings.
“Not me. I have been respectful. I am not behaving like a street fighter,” quipped SG Mehta.
“Such below-the-belt remarks … You are the Solicitor General of India,” Dave shot back, as per LiveLaw.
Notably, the Supreme Court also granted the National Federation of Indian Women permission to intervene in the case, with Advocates Nizam Pasha and Rashmi Singh representing them. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on September 17, with the Court requesting Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi to compile and present the proposed suggestions.
Related:
Mumbai: Hundreds of people displaced after demolitions in Jai Bhim Nagar
Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty
‘Ethnic cleansing by State?’ HC stops Haryana’s Nuh & Gurugram demolitions