Supreme Court Condemns “Bulldozer Justice”: Calls for Rule of Law in Property Demolition Cases
The Supreme Court has criticized the nation’s tendency to demolish buildings punitively, saying that “justice through bulldozers” is unheard of in any civilized system of jurisprudence and is simply unacceptable under the rule of law [In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash].
Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, together with Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, emphasized that the State must adhere to the proper process of law before removing illegal structures or encroachments.
“No civilized system of jurisprudence has ever provided justice by bulldozers. There is a serious risk that property destruction will occur as a selective form of retaliation for unrelated reasons if any branch or official of the state is allowed to act oppressively and illegally. The top court ruled that the fear of destroying people’s homes and properties could not silence their voices.
The observations were included in one of CJI Chandrachud’s final rulings before his retirement.
The Court expressed these views in a case in which a senior journalist complained in a letter to the Supreme Court in 2019 that officials in Uttar Pradesh had demolished his ancestral home without warning.
The journalist stated that the demolition was retaliation for a newspaper article that included accusations of misconduct regarding the road’s construction, despite the authorities’ assertion that the property was on a route that had been designated as a national highway.
The Court ordered the State of Uttar Pradesh to compensate the victim ₹25 lakh as an interim measure, deeming the entire State process to be oppressive.
As it continued to comment on what has become known as “bulldozer justice”—where the authorities destroy the properties of persons believed to be involved in criminal offenses—the Court stated that such a centralized and unilateral action by the State government could not be tolerated.
The Court ruled that although illegal intrusion and possession of public property are not permitted by law, a person’s home is their greatest security source.
It explained that town planning and municipal laws have sufficient mechanisms for handling unauthorized encroachments.
The Court emphasised that the protections outlined in the laws must be followed.
The top court demanded punishment against officials who carry out or authorise such punitive measures, calling “bulldozer justice” intolerable.
“The constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be meaningless if allowed. State officials who engage in or condone such illegal behaviour will be subject to disciplinary action. The Court stated that such legal violations must result in criminal penalties.
The Court stated that the following procedural protections must be met before taking action about the encroachment obstructing road widening projects:
(i) Determine the road’s current width based on official documents and maps;
(ii) Using the current records and maps, conduct a survey or demarcation to determine whether there is any encroachment on the current road;
(iii) If an encroachment is discovered, give the intruders a formal written notice to remove the encroachment;
(iv) Should the notice disagree to the notice’s legality or correctness, resolve the objection by a spoken order in accordance with natural justice principles;
(v) Provide reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is suggested if the objection is denied, and if the person does not act, remove the encroachment in accordance with the law, unless prohibited by a court order or an order from the appropriate authority;
(vi) The State must initiate legal action to purchase the land before beginning the road expansion project if the current width of the road, including the State land adjacent to the road, is insufficient to support the road’s expansion.
To guarantee adherence to the directives about the process to be followed for road widening in general, the Court instructed its Registrar (Judicial) to distribute a copy of the current judgement to the Chief Secretaries of each State and Union Territory.
