Demolishing the houses of defendants violates the basic principles of criminal justice

By Shayan Bisney

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court of India's bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan on Tuesday sharply criticised the executive in its judgment in the case of Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation. [WP (C) 295 of 2022].

The Supreme Court in its order stated that the executive cannot be a judge and such decisions cannot be taken without following due process of law. The court also stated in its order, “Till the next date of hearing, we direct that no demolition work shall be carried out anywhere in the country without obtaining the permission of this court.”

The court's direction to seek acquittal from the Supreme Court of India from any demolition activity across the country shows that the court has taken direct and full notice of the matter and is treating it with utmost priority. This should deter state governments across the country from taking action without following due process of law and acting in an overbearing and arbitrary manner.

The Supreme Court further clarified that its order “would not be applicable if there was a
Unauthorized constructions in public places such as streets, paths, footpaths, adjacent railway lines or
all rivers or waters and also in cases where a demolition order has been issued by
a court of law.”

This order is a welcome step towards the kind of “bulldozer justice” that has become rampant in recent years. The government of a state that does not follow due process, which is
Law that would demolish the home of an alleged defendant.

This has become a kind of summary trial for the alleged accused and would set a disturbing trend for others. Justice Viswanathan also said while delivering the verdict, “Even if it is a case of illegal destruction, it is against the spirit of the Constitution.”

The government of a state affiliated with a particular political party started this “bulldozer rule” in their state, which was later imitated by other states, usually of the same political party. It was a form of speedy justice by the executive without the involvement of due process of law to show how serious it is about punishing the alleged accused.

The state governments thought that this would not only send a strong message to the alleged defendants but also show that the executive was very serious about punishing the alleged defendants and wanted justice as soon as possible. This was not only a shocking move by the executive but also was done without any regard for due process.

It is important to note that most of these illegal bulldozing actions were carried out following communal tensions in the states and most of the victims of such actions belonged to a particular community. The respective government carried it out without sending any notice to the alleged accused and came the next day with big bulldozers and cranes to demolish the houses.

This not only resulted in the eviction of the alleged accused but also the eviction of the entire family of the person who lived in the same house. Two petitions were filed in the Supreme Court seeking demolition action against a crime committed by a tenant's son. One wonders why the landlord's house should be demolished against the acts of his tenant's son.

All this violates the basic principles of law and criminal justice. The state government's view would be that the structure was illegal and without compliance with state guidelines and rules of local
Municipal and state agencies. The structure may well be illegal, but such action without following due process seemed to bring out a vindictive side of the state executive branch.

That an alleged defendant is not brought to trial and found guilty of his crime, but instead his home where he lives with his family is destroyed is something unheard of and is marred in many ways by warning signs.

The Supreme Court while delivering its verdict has categorically stated that if no building is demolished by the next date of hearing, there will be no disaster. The strict stance of the court has set the tone against these illegal demolitions. The court must clarify this in the following hearings and act as a warning to the state governments against such actions.

In my home state of Telangana, the current Chief Minister has set up a new statutory body that
Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Monitoring and Protection Agency or HYDRA to combat
illegal interventions in the state, especially near water bodies that affect the flow of
the water or have dried it up with their illegal buildings.

This has deeply shocked the people of the state. It must be understood that if the ultimate aim of such measures is to remove illegal constructions, especially near water bodies, then due process must be put in place to do this and it cannot be done in an arbitrary and arrogant manner. Not only would this be an asset to the natural habitat of the state, but the present government could also do this with the confidence of its voters.

The current work of this body has caused great controversy in the state, but since the
Since the aim of this body is to remove illegal encroachments near water bodies, the Supreme Court order does not apply to it.

With this order of the Supreme Court, the state governments have to be cautious in their actions and especially in their intentions to attack and demolish buildings without following due process. The court has taken up this matter of utmost public urgency and has provided timely relief to those affected by these actions.

The author is a lawyer based in Hyderabad. The views and opinions expressed in this article do not reflect the views of the publication.