DEMOLITION IN THE EYES OF LAW

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/bulldozer-justice-law-demolition-9548173/

Context:

The Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the frequent demolition of houses and properties of an accused person without following due process.

The Problem of Bulldozer Justice

• The term “Bulldozer Justice” is used to define the practice of demolishing houses and properties of individuals accused of criminal activity, most often without following the due process of law.
• The practice raises concerns over the rule of law, the constitutional rights of the person, and the misuse of administrative power.
• The main criticism of this practice is that it is an arbitrary action taken by the people in power or in the administration, which bypasses the legal procedures and Judiciary.
  • • Local authorities investigate the case and also act like the judge, this goes against the core constitutional values of separation of power.

Law over demolition

• Many state laws allow demolition under certain conditions, but the key element is due process of law.
  • • It means giving the property owner a notice, an opportunity to respond and a chance to appeal the decision.
• Under Rajasthan Municipalities Act 2009, authorities can take action against individuals who encroach on public land with imprisonment or fines.
  • • However, before any demolition, they need to issue a formal notice and give a reasonable opportunity to the accused to explain their case.
• Under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act 1961, demolition can be done after a formal notice is given and the owner fails to explain the sufficient reason to prevent it.
• Under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973, authorities are required to give at least 15 days' notice before any demolition of any unauthorized structure.

Observation made by the Supreme Court

• The court recently criticized the frequent use of demolition without following the due process of law.
• The court said that even if someone is convicted the demolition cannot happen without following the rule of law.
• The court upheld the constitutional principle that no one can be punished or deprived of their property without proper legal process.
  • • Therefore proper procedural fairness is important before taking a drastic measure like demolition.
• The Supreme Court highlighted that there is a need to establish a balance between maintaining law and order and respecting individual rights.

Concluding Remarks

• If demolitions are used as a tool for immediate punishment, it sets a dangerous model to follow, as it will make it easier for the government to bypass the judiciary.
• Authorities may argue that quick demolitions help to control communal tension and other serious crimes against society, but the absence of due process of law erodes the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
• The legal framework is clear that demolitions are permitted only under specific conditions and property owners must be given a fair chance to defend themselves.
  • • By ignoring these constitutional safeguards authorities violate constitutional Rights, including the right to property (Article 300A) and the right to a fair trial (Article 21).
• The Supreme Court recently highlighted the need for clear guidelines on demolition to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens from arbitrary administrative actions.

Source:

Indian Express