In a major verdict on the “bulldozer actions” by state governments, the Supreme Courtroom on Wednesday dominated that authorities can’t demolish an individual’s residence just because they’re accused of a criminal offense. The court docket emphasised that the administration can’t act as choose, jury, and executioner, and officers chargeable for unlawful demolitions ought to face punishment.
The Supreme Courtroom highlighted the constitutional protections in opposition to arbitrary state actions, underscoring the significance of the rule of regulation, which ensures that people’ property rights should not violated with out due course of. “The state should observe pure justice and due strategy of regulation, giving the accused discover and a good listening to,” the court docket dominated, including, “We’re a constitutional democracy the place the rule of regulation should prevail, not the notion which may is true.”
Justice Gavai’s notes offered additional readability, stating, “No demolition ought to be carried out with out prior present trigger discover, returnable both per native municipal legal guidelines or inside 15 days from the date of service, whichever is later.” He warned in opposition to demolitions concentrating on particular people whereas sparing others with comparable properties, suggesting that such selective motion signifies a motive to penalize with out trial.
Justice Gavai expressed concern over scenes of girls and kids being dragged onto the streets throughout night time demolitions, calling it a distressing sight. He emphasised {that a} residence represents years of exhausting work, goals, and hopes, and authorities should justify that demolition is the one choice out there.
Moreover, the Supreme Courtroom clarified that these instructions wouldn’t apply to unauthorized constructions on public land or circumstances with a court-ordered demolition. The ruling reinforces residents’ rights to property and shelter, aligning with Article 19 of the Structure as a basic proper.
