Bulldozer justice simply unacceptable in a civilised system: Supreme Court

"Justice through bulldozers" is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence and simply unacceptable under the rule of law, the Supreme Court recently said while criticizing the trend of punitive demolition of constructions in the country [In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash] ..The Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stressed that the State must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures."Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads," the top court said. The observations have been made in one of the last judgments written by CJI Chandrachud before his retirement..Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead.Supreme Court of India.The Court made the observations in a case where a senior journalist wrote a letter to the top court in 2019 complaining that his ancestral residential house was demolished without notice by authorities in Uttar Pradesh.While the authorities claimed that the house was on a road which was notified as a national highway, the journalist said demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report that contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the road's construction. Finding the entire process followed by the State to be high handed, the Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to pay ₹25 lakh compensation as an interim measure to the victim..Such high-handed and unilateral action by the State government cannot be countenanced, the Court said as it went on to comment on what has come to be known as "bulldozer justice" - where the authorities demolish the properties of those alleged to be involved in criminal offences.The Court said while the law does not condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments, the ultimate security which a human being possesses is his house.It went to explain that there are municipal laws and town-planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. The safeguards which are provided in the laws must be observed, the Court stressed. .Calling "bulldozer justice" unacceptable, the top court called for action against officials who carry out or order such punitive action. "If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. Officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions," the Court said..With regard to the encroachment coming in way of road widening projects, the Court said the following procedural safeguards must be fulfilled before taking action:(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing records/maps;(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment;(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or court;(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the road widening exercise..The Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to circulate a copy of the present judgment to the Chief Secretaries of all the States and Union Territories to ensure compliance with the directions issued with regard to the procedure to be followed for the purpose of road widening in general..[Read Judgment]