In a landmark judgment addressing the controversial “bulldozer actions,” the Supreme Court has firmly cautioned against any executive-led demolitions aimed at punishing individuals accused of crimes, declaring such measures a grave “abuse of power.” The ruling underscored that only the judiciary holds the authority to pronounce guilt and impose punishments, warning that any disregard of this foundational principle would be met with “the heavy hand of the law.”
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan stated unequivocally that any instance of property destruction by executive authorities, especially when due process has not been observed, strikes at the heart of natural justice and constitutional values. “The chilling image of bulldozers razing homes under arbitrary orders recalls an era of brute force—anathema to the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution,” the bench asserted. Such unilateral actions, they emphasized, are beyond the scope of executive authority and represent a serious overreach.
Reinforcing the core tenet of separation of powers, the Court emphasized that any punitive actions fall exclusively under judicial purview. “When executives demolish properties merely on suspicion of wrongdoing, they tread dangerously close to replacing judicial functions, a boundary that cannot be crossed,” the judgment read. Even for those who have been convicted, lawful processes must be followed before any punitive measures, such as property demolitions, are executed.
The ruling further reflected on the essential principle of “rule of law,” highlighting that a system where the executive unilaterally inflicts penalties—such as demolition—on accused individuals dismantles constitutional safeguards. The justices emphasized that public officials engaging in unauthorized punitive demolitions must be held accountable for their actions.
The Court also reinforced the rights of the accused under the Constitution, which include the right to a fair trial and protection against cruel and inhumane treatment. “Accused persons, regardless of charges, possess inherent dignity and legal rights, and their punishment must align with established law,” the bench affirmed. The judgment closed with a reminder of the foundational principle that “an accused is innocent until proven guilty,” a standard integral to upholding justice within any legal framework.
