Constitution of India — Arts. 14, 21, 32, 142
Demolition of property of accused / convict — Without due process — Unconstitutional
Demolition of residential or commercial property by State machinery merely because a person is an accused or a convict, and that too without following the due process prescribed by law, is wholly unconstitutional — Executive cannot act as judge and impose punishment — Such action violates rule of law and doctrine of separation of powers — Accountability of public officials mandated.
[Paras 53, 54, 71]
Rule of Law — Foundation of democratic governance — Abuse of power
Rule of law is an umbrella concept to protect citizens against abuse of State power — No person can be punished in body or goods except in accordance with law established by ordinary courts — Executive excesses amounting to arbitrariness have no place in a constitutional system.
[Paras 14–19, 30, 33]
Separation of Powers — Executive overreach
Executive cannot usurp judicial functions by declaring guilt or inflicting punishment — Demolition of property as a penal measure transgresses constitutional limits of executive power.
[Paras 44, 71]
Criminal Law — Presumption of innocence — Natural justice
Accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law — Penal consequences cannot be imposed on the basis of accusation or suspicion — Fair trial and due process are indispensable.
[Paras 63, 64, 66, 75]
Right to Life — Right to shelter — Art. 21
Right to shelter is a facet of right to life — House is not merely property but embodies dignity, security, and socio-economic aspirations — Deprivation of shelter without due process is unconstitutional.
[Paras 76, 78, 84, 86]
Collective Punishment — Impermissibility
Demolition of a house occupied by family members on the ground that one resident is accused or convicted amounts to collective punishment — Such punishment is alien to constitutional and criminal jurisprudence.
[Paras 76, 88]
Mala fides — Selective demolition — Pick and choose
Where similarly situated structures are left untouched and property of an accused alone is demolished, a presumption of punitive intent arises — Authorities must rebut presumption of mala fides.
[Para 82]
Demolition — Proportionality — Last resort
Demolition can be undertaken only when it is the sole option available — Authorities must consider compounding or partial demolition — Extreme step must be justified with reasons.
[Paras 84, 86]
Constitution of India — Art. 142
Directions to prevent arbitrary demolitions
Mandatory procedural safeguards laid down — Prior show-cause notice, personal hearing, reasoned order, opportunity for appeal, time to vacate, videography of demolition — Non-compliance to entail contempt, restitution, and personal liability of officers.
[Paras 90–94]
II. ANALYSIS OF LAW
A. Rule of Law as Controlling Principle
The Court reiterates that rule of law is part of the basic structure and exists to restrain arbitrary State power. Any punitive action affecting life or property must be rooted in law and adjudicated by courts, not executive fiat (Paras 14–23).
B. Separation of Powers and Executive Limits
By demolishing property on the ground of criminal accusation, the executive assumes the role of judge and executioner. Such conduct directly violates the constitutional demarcation between executive and judiciary (Paras 44, 71).
C. Criminal Jurisprudence and Presumption of Innocence
The judgment emphatically affirms that punishment cannot precede adjudication. Even convicts cannot be subjected to demolition without statutory authority and due process; a fortiori, accused persons cannot be so punished (Paras 63–75).
D. Right to Shelter under Article 21
The Court elevates shelter beyond a property right, recognising it as intrinsic to dignity and life. Arbitrary demolition, therefore, strikes at the core of Article 21 (Paras 76–86).
E. Collective Punishment and Innocent Family Members
The Court categorically rejects penalisation of spouses, children, parents, or co-owners for acts they are not accused of. Such action is described as anarchy and unconstitutional (Paras 76, 88).
F. Arbitrariness and Mala Fides
Selective targeting of properties associated with accused persons, while ignoring similarly placed structures, invites a presumption of malice in law. The burden shifts to the State to justify bona fides (Para 82).
G. Binding Directions under Article 142
Recognising systemic abuse, the Court issues pan-India binding directions to institutionalise transparency, fairness, and accountability, including personal liability of erring officers and restitution at personal cost (Paras 90–94).
III. ANALYSIS OF FACTS (AS PER RECORD)
-
The writ petitions were filed under Article 32 complaining of demolitions carried out without due process, allegedly on the ground of involvement of occupants in criminal cases (Paras 1–3).
-
Interim protection was granted, and the Court stayed demolitions nationwide except for public encroachments and court-ordered demolitions (Paras 6–7).
-
The Court considered extensive material, affidavits, and suggestions from States, Union of India, and intervenors, leading to formulation of uniform safeguards (Paras 8–12).
-
The factual matrix demonstrated a pattern capable of abuse, necessitating constitutional intervention (Paras 12–13).
Conclusion
The judgment establishes that “bulldozer justice” has no sanction under the Constitution. Any demolition affecting life or shelter must strictly comply with statutory procedure, constitutional guarantees, and the binding directions issued by the Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment