Officials Will Be Personally Responsible: Supreme Court Mandates Strict Guidelines Against Illegal Demolitions

The Supreme Court of India has issued a powerful judgment against illegal demolitions, commonly referred to as “bulldozer actions”, emphasizing accountability for public officials who act arbitrarily or in violation of judicial orders. This decision aims to uphold the rule of law, ensure transparency, and protect citizens' fundamental rights from executive overreach.

Accountability for Illegal Actions

• Personal Cost for Violations:
  • Officials found responsible for illegal demolitions will be personally liable to restore the demolished property.
  • They must also pay damages to the affected parties.
• Contempt of Court:
  • Violations of these judicial directions will result in contempt of court proceedings and potential prosecution.
  • The bench stated: “Violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to prosecution."

Executive Overreach and Separation of Powers

• Court’s Observations on Executive Actions:
  • The executive cannot act as a judge or punish individuals by demolishing their properties.
  • Such acts violate the doctrine of separation of powers and undermine the rule of law.
  • The Court emphasized that arbitrary demolitions infringe upon the right to shelter, a fundamental right under the Constitution.
• Collective Punishment Condemned:
  • Demolitions targeting a family for the alleged crimes of one member amount to “collective punishment”, which the Court deemed unconstitutional and inhumane.

Directives Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court laid down specific binding directives to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in demolition processes. These are as follows:

Prior Show-Cause Notice:

• A show-cause notice must be issued at least 15 days prior to any demolition action.

Opportunity for Hearing:

• Authorities must provide:
  • A personal hearing to the affected parties, allowing them to present their case.
  • A final order that includes proper reasoning, specifying why demolition is the only viable solution in the given circumstances.

Delay in Execution:

• Even after issuing the final order, the following must be ensured:
  • 15 additional days must be given before executing the demolition.
  • During this time, the affected parties should have the opportunity to:
    • Challenge the decision in an appellate forum.
    • Vacate the premises voluntarily.

Transparency Measures:

To ensure transparency and prevent misuse of power, the Court mandated:

• The videography of demolition actions to maintain accountability.
• A detailed list of officials involved in the process to be recorded.
• Local authorities to create a digital portal for uploading:
  • Notices and orders related to demolitions in real-time.
  • This step aims to eliminate allegations of back-dated notice.
  • The final order must justify: Why demolition was the only feasible solution under the given circumstances.

Ensuring Accountability of Public Officials

• The Court emphasized the importance of holding public officials accountable for arbitrary or illegal actions:
  • “In such matters, public officials who take the law into their hands should be made accountable for such actions.”
• This accountability ensures that the executive does not act in a high-handed, arbitrary, or discriminatory manner.mpact and Broader Implications
• Upholding Rule of Law:
  • This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and ensuring that executive actions are bound by due process.
• Transparency in Governance:
  • By mandating detailed documentation, video recording, and digital portals, the Court ensures transparency and prevents manipulation of records.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights:
  • The directives safeguard the right to shelter, ensuring that demolitions are not carried out as punitive or retaliatory measures.

Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected case)

Attachment: