Supreme Court sets guidelines for property demolitions in criminal cases: In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024) INSC 866 (13 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 13 November 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 866
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can the government demolish the homes of people accused of crimes? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, emphasizing the importance of due process and the rule of law. This judgment sets out guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions, safeguarding the rights of individuals and families. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a unanimous decision, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

This case arose from a series of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners raised concerns about the demolition of residential and commercial properties by state authorities, without following due process, solely because the owners were accused in criminal cases. The petitioners sought a direction to the Union of India and the concerned States to prevent such actions and to take strict measures against officials involved in these illegal demolitions.

The Supreme Court heard the matter over several sessions. On September 2, 2024, the Court acknowledged the concerns and proposed to establish pan-India guidelines. The Court requested suggestions from all parties to frame appropriate guidelines. On September 17, 2024, the Court ordered a stay on demolitions across the country, except for unauthorized structures in public places or those ordered by a court of law. The Court heard detailed arguments on October 1, 2024, from various senior counsels and the Solicitor General of India.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court, after taking cognizance of the issue, initiated a series of hearings. The Court sought suggestions from all parties involved to formulate comprehensive guidelines. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit stating that demolitions would only be carried out following the due process of law. The Court acknowledged this stand and proceeded to develop pan-India guidelines. An interim order was passed on September 17, 2024, halting demolitions nationwide, with specific exceptions. The Court then heard detailed arguments from various parties, including senior counsels and the Solicitor General of India, before issuing the final judgment.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the protection of fundamental rights under the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that no one is above the law and that every person is equal before the law. The Court also highlighted that the executive cannot assume judicial functions and that punishment can only be imposed by a court of law after a fair trial. The Court discussed the importance of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and how it encompasses the right to shelter. The Court also referred to the doctrine of public trust, emphasizing that government officials must act as trustees of the citizens and must be held accountable for their actions.

The Court referred to the concept of natural justice, ensuring that every person has the right to be heard before any action is taken against them. The Court also emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence, stating that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that state authorities were demolishing properties without following due process, solely because the owners were accused in criminal cases. They contended that this action was punitive, arbitrary, and violated the fundamental rights of the accused and their families. They also highlighted that these actions were often carried out with undue haste immediately after a person was named as an accused, indicating a mala fide intent.

The Solicitor General of India, representing the Union of India and some states, argued that the demolitions were carried out due to violations of municipal laws and that the state authorities were following due process. He submitted that in some cases it was a mere coincidence that the properties in violation belonged to the accused. He also clarified that the state authorities had affirmed that demolitions would only be carried out in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

The Court also took into account the suggestions provided by various counsels, which included the following points:

• Detailed show cause notice with specific grounds for demolition.
• Adequate time for the owner to reply to the show cause notice.
• Personal hearing for the owner.
• Consideration of the owner’s reply and supporting material.
• Proportionality of action to the violation.
• Judicial scrutiny of demolition orders.
• Accountability of erring officers.
• Compensatory damages for illegal demolitions.
• Dissemination of guidelines and compliances.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the properties of persons accused of committing crimes can be demolished without following the due process of law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered various authorities to support its reasoning, focusing on the principles of rule of law, separation of powers, and protection of fundamental rights:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• A.V. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution: The Court used Dicey’s postulates to emphasize the importance of the rule of law and the need for legal processes to be followed.
• Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308: The Court cited this case to highlight the importance of shelter and the limits of state power, emphasizing that the state cannot enter a person’s home without justification by law.
• Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain (1976) 2 SCR 347: The Court relied on this case to establish that the rule of law is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, reinforcing the need for all actions to adhere to legal principles.
• National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 SCC 742: The Court cited this case to underscore the State’s duty to protect all citizens and act impartially, highlighting the obligation to safeguard the life, health, and well-being of all residents.
• Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2018] 8 S.C.R. 1: The Court referred to this case to emphasize its role as the interpreter of the Constitution, vigilant against State actions that threaten the balance between State power and citizens’ rights.
• Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1: The Court cited this case to stress the importance of the rule of law in preventing abuse of power and ensuring accountability.
• Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others [2024] 1 S.C.R. 743: The Court relied on this case to reiterate the judiciary’s role in enforcing the rule of law and ensuring equality, emphasizing that the judiciary must protect against abuse of process.
• Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 549: The Court used this case to discuss the doctrine of separation of powers, highlighting that no single organ of the State should assume functions belonging to another.
• I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of T.N. (2007) 2 SCC 1: This case was cited to recognize the separation of powers as a system of checks and balances, essential for preventing tyranny.
• State of U.P. and others v. Jeet S. Bisht and another (2007) 6 SCC 586: The Court referred to this case to discuss the importance of oversight function in today’s world, emphasizing the need to check not only governmental excesses but also inaction.
• Kalpana Mehta and others v. Union of India and others (2018) 7 SCC 1: The Court cited this case to discuss the concept of constitutional limitation as a facet of the doctrine of separation of powers, emphasizing that the Court can issue directions to the executive to further fundamental rights.
• Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2011) 9 SCC 354: The Court used this case to discuss the doctrine of public trust and public accountability, emphasizing that government officials must act as trustees of the citizens.
• Centre for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and another (2005) 8 SCC 202: This case was cited to highlight that State actions causing loss are actionable under public law, emphasizing the need to protect citizens against devastating results of State action.
• Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others (1986) 1 SCC 133: The Court referred to this case to distinguish between the exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith, emphasizing that fraud on power voids an order.
• Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others (1993) 2 SCC 746: The Court cited this case to discuss the grant of relief under public law for infringement of fundamental rights, emphasizing the need to evolve new tools to give relief in public law.
• Common Cause, a registered society v. Union of India and others (1999) 6 SCC 667: The Court referred to this case to discuss the tort of misfeasance in public office, highlighting that public officers can be held liable for deliberate abuse of power.
• Sunil Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration and others (1978) 4 SCC 494: The Court cited this case to declare certain prison practices as inhuman, emphasizing that even incarcerated individuals have rights and cannot be subjected to cruel treatment.
• Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi (1978) 4 SCC 104: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement.
• Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 488: The Court cited this case to highlight that Article 21 protects prisoners against various inflictions, emphasizing that any abridgment of liberty must satisfy Article 21.
• Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. 2024 INSC 753: The Court referred to this case to reiterate the constitutional rights of the accused, emphasizing that even the incarcerated have inherent dignity.
• Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another 1983 INSC 85: The Court cited this case to discuss the violation of rights of the accused and the need for compensation, emphasizing that the State must repair the damage done by its officers.
• Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of Maharashtra 2019 INSC 305: The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of granting compensation to those falsely implicated and held in jail for long periods.
• H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law: The Court used Hart’s summary to explain the principle of natural justice, emphasizing that a minimum of justice is realized when rules are applied impartially.
• John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: The Court used Rawls’ definition to explain the principle of natural justice, emphasizing that a legal system must ensure fair and open trials.
• Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 2008 SC 1943: The Court referred to this case to stress the importance of a fair trial, highlighting that condemnation should only be rendered after a real hearing.
• State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punja ji Shah (1982) 1 SCR 299: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the right to a fair and speedy trial is enshrined under the right to life.
• John v Rees (1970) Ch 345: The Court cited this case to summarize the importance of the principles of natural justice, highlighting the resentment felt when decisions are made without an opportunity to be heard.
• Chameli Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another (1996) 2 SCC 549: The Court relied on this case to discuss the right to shelter as a fundamental right, emphasizing that it includes adequate living space, safe structures, and basic amenities.
• Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2016) 7 SCC 353: The Court referred to this case to lay emphasis on the four-pronged test of proportionality, emphasizing the need for a proper balance between rights and restrictions.
• K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of India and others (2017) 10 SCC 1: The Court cited this case to lay emphasis on the four-pronged test of proportionality.
• Vivek Narayan Sharma and others v. Union of India and others (2023) 3 SCC 1: The Court referred to this case to lay emphasis on the four-pronged test of proportionality.
• Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others (1980) 2 SCC 593: The Court cited this case to discuss the rejection of community guilt and collective punishment, emphasizing that no man shall be punished except for his own guilt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the arbitrary and punitive nature of demolitions carried out by state authorities against individuals accused of crimes. The Court emphasized that such actions violate the fundamental principles of the rule of law, separation of powers, and the right to life and shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court was also mindful of the need to protect the rights of innocent family members who might be affected by such demolitions. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to ensure that the executive does not act as a judge and that punishment is only imposed by a court of law after a fair trial. The Court also took into account the socio-economic impact of demolitions, highlighting that a house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family for stability and security.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that demolitions were due to violations of municipal laws. However, the Court rejected this argument as a justification for bypassing due process and emphasized the need for proportionality. The Court reasoned that even if a structure is in violation of municipal laws, the authorities must follow proper procedures, provide an opportunity for a hearing, and consider alternative options before resorting to demolition. The final decision was reached by balancing the need for law enforcement with the protection of fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with both Justices agreeing that the executive cannot act as a judge and that demolitions without due process are illegal and unconstitutional. The Court held that such actions violate the rule of law, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. The Court also emphasized that even if a person is convicted, their property cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. The Court also highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of innocent family members who may be affected by such demolitions.

The Court stated, “The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’.”

The Court also observed, “If a citizen’s house is demolished merely because he is an accused or even for that matter a convict, that too without following the due process as prescribed by law, in our considered view, it will be totally unconstitutional for more than one reason.”

Further, the Court noted, “Punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live in or properties owned by them is nothing but an anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.”

Key Takeaways

• Demolitions of properties cannot be carried out without following due process, even if the owner is accused of a crime.
• The executive cannot act as a judge and impose punishment.
• The right to shelter is a fundamental right, and demolitions must be a last resort.
• Authorities must provide a show cause notice, a personal hearing, and an opportunity to challenge demolition orders.
• Erring officers will be held accountable for illegal demolitions, and compensation must be provided to the affected parties.
• These guidelines are not applicable to unauthorized structures in public places or those ordered by a court of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. Notice:
   • No demolition without a prior show cause notice, returnable within 15 days or as per local municipal laws, whichever isearlier.
   • The notice must specify the grounds for demolition and the relevant provisions of law.
2. Hearing:
   • The owner must be given a personal hearing before any demolition order is passed.
   • The owner must be given an opportunity to submit all relevant documents and evidence.
3. Order:
   • The demolition order must be in writing and must state the reasons for demolition.
   • It must also specify the time within which the demolition must be carried out.
4. Appeal:
   • The owner must be given an opportunity to appeal the demolition order before a higher authority or a court of law.
   • The appeal must be decided within a reasonable time.
5. Proportionality:
   • The demolition must be proportionate to the violation, and less drastic measures must be considered.
   • Demolitions must only be a last resort.
6. Accountability:
   • Erring officers must be held accountable for illegal demolitions.
   • Disciplinary action must be taken against officials who violate the guidelines.
7. Compensation:
   • The State must provide compensation to affected parties for illegal demolitions.
   • The compensation must be adequate and must cover the loss suffered by the affected parties.
8. Dissemination:
   • The State must widely disseminate these guidelines and ensure compliance by all authorities.
   • The guidelines must be made available in local languages.
9. Interim Order:
   • The interim order passed by the Court on September 17, 2024, will continue to operate until all States have framed rules and regulations in compliance with these guidelines.

Impact of the Judgment

This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on how state authorities handle property demolitions in criminal cases. The guidelines set by the Supreme Court will ensure that due process is followed and that the fundamental rights of individuals and families are protected. The judgment will also hold public officials accountable for their actions and will provide a mechanism for compensation for illegal demolitions. The judgment is expected to deter arbitrary and punitive actions by state authorities and will reinforce the principles of the rule of law and separation of powers. The judgment also strengthens the judiciary’s role as the guardian of the Constitution and the protector of fundamental rights.

The judgment also highlights the importance of a fair and just legal system, where every person is treated equally before the law. The judgment is a significant step towards ensuring that the State acts as a trustee of the citizens and that its actions are always in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The judgment also emphasizes the need for a balance between law enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights. The Court’s decision is also expected to have a positive impact on the socio-economic well-being of the citizens, as it will prevent the arbitrary displacement of families and the loss of their homes.

The Court also stated, “These guidelines will be applicable to all demolition orders passed in the country, except for unauthorized structures in public places or those ordered by a court of law. The interim order passed by this Court on 17th September 2024, shall continue to operate until all the States have framed rules and regulations in compliance with these guidelines.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024) INSC 866 is a landmark decision that sets clear guidelines for property demolitions in criminal cases. The judgment emphasizes the importance of due process, the rule of law, and the protection of fundamental rights. The Court has made it clear that the executive cannot act as a judge and that punishment can only be imposed by a court of law after a fair trial. The guidelines will ensure that state authorities act within the bounds of the law and that the rights of individuals and families are protected. This judgment is expected to bring about a significant change in the way property demolitions are carried out in India, ensuring that such actions are fair, just, and in accordance with the Constitution.