The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, emphasised that the alleged involvement in a crime is not a valid justification for demolishing legally constructed properties. The Court noted that threats of demolition cannot be overlooked in a nation governed by the rule of law, underscoring that such actions may be perceived as undermining the legal framework. This decision comes amid rising concerns over the use of demolitions as punitive actions, particularly against individuals accused of crimes without due process. The Court stressed that such threats not only violate the principles of justice but also pose a serious challenge to the rule of law in the country.
“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.” (Para 5)
Highlighting the importance of the legal process, the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti declared that the actions of one family member cannot justify punitive measures against the entire family or their lawful residence. The bench warned that these demolition threats, if unaddressed, could erode public confidence in the justice system, creating a dangerous precedent where accusations are treated as verdicts, and where properties are destroyed without any legal basis. Such actions, the Court observed, are tantamount to “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land,” undermining the very essence of governance under the rule of law.
The said ruling paves a path towards a broader stance by the judiciary against extrajudicial punitive measures, indicating a commitment to safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that legal procedures are followed in addressing criminal allegations. The Court’s firm words come at a time when bulldozer actions have increasingly been used as a form of punishment, particularly in communal and politically sensitive cases, raising concerns about misuse of state power.
Details of the proceedings:
The Supreme Court bench issued a notice returnable in four weeks in response to a petition filed by Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed, whose family home in Village Kathlal, Kheda District, Gujarat, was under threat of demolition by municipal authorities. This threat followed the registration of an FIR against one of the petitioner’s family members on September 1, 2024. The petitioner alleged that the authorities had threatened to bulldoze his residence, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court for relief.
Senior advocate Iqbal Syed, representing the petitioner, argued that his client is a co-owner of the land in question, as reflected in the revenue records. He further pointed to a resolution passed by the Kathlal Gram Panchayat on August 21, 2004, which granted permission to construct residential houses on the land. The petitioner’s family has been residing in these houses for nearly two decades.
Syed informed the Court that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nadiad, Kheda District, on September 6, 2024. The complaint requested that legal action be taken only against the individual accused of the crime and urged the authorities not to threaten or demolish the legally constructed home of the petitioner.
“The petitioner refers to the complaint under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 addressed to the Deputy SP, Nadiad, Kheda District on 06.09.2024 describing the situation and making it clear that law should take its own course against the person accused of crime. But, the Nagar Palika or others in the shadow of the Nagar Palika, should have no reason to either threaten or to take any steps such as using bulldozer, to demolish the legally constructed and legally occupied house/residence of the petitioner. The counsel would also refer to the orders passed by this Court on 02.09.2024 in the WP(C) No. 295 of 2022 which indicates that for similar threats of bulldozing the residences of accused of crimes, the Court proposes to take PAN-India action.” (Para 4)
Observations by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court, while issuing the notice, ordered that the status quo regarding the petitioner’s property be maintained until further orders. The bench highlighted that the alleged crime must be addressed through the legal process in a court of law and that punitive actions, such as demolishing homes, cannot be based merely on accusations.
“In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner’s property is to be maintained by all concerned.” (Para 7)
The bench further stressed that in a country governed by the rule of law, actions against a family member should not result in punitive measures against others or their property. The bench remarked that such threats of demolition were contrary to the principles of justice and could be seen as “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.”
The petitioner’s counsel, Iqbal Syed, drew attention to a similar Supreme Court order issued on September 2, 2024, in the case of Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, wherein the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had indicated its intention to take pan-India action against the practice of demolishing residences based on criminal allegations. Raising critical questions, the bench had 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 had, even then, expressed concern over the growing trend of using “bulldozer actions” as a punitive measure and suggested that the Court might frame nationwide guidelines to address the issue. (The detailed report can be read here.)
The present bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy echoed these concerns, stating that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a nation where the rule of law prevails. The Court reaffirmed that the legal process must take its course, and it would not tolerate actions that undermine the supremacy of law.
The Supreme Court’s notice to the Gujarat government and its order to maintain the status quo until further consideration marks a critical step in addressing the broader issue of authorities using demolitions as a punitive measure. The case will be revisited in four weeks when the state government is expected to respond.
The order may be accessed below:
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