The Supreme Court has stepped in to curtail the unchecked use of “bulldozer actions” by state authorities, invoking its powers under Article 142 to establish critical safeguards against arbitrary demolitions of properties tied to alleged crimes.
A bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued a set of stringent guidelines aimed at ensuring transparency and fairness in demolitions. The court underscored the importance of giving affected individuals sufficient time to challenge demolition orders and to vacate their properties, emphasizing the human cost of sudden demolitions, particularly for vulnerable groups such as women, children, and the elderly. “Authorities must show restraint and provide ample time for citizens to arrange their affairs,” the judgment read.
Importantly, the new guidelines apply only to demolitions not related to public spaces or orders from courts of law, such as those targeting unauthorized structures on roads or near water bodies.
Key directives from the ruling include:
Notice Requirements:
- Demolition orders must be preceded by a show-cause notice, giving affected parties 15 days to respond.
- Notices must be served by registered post and also prominently displayed on the property.
- To prevent any delays or backdating, the authorities must promptly acknowledge receipt of the notice through digital communication.
Personal Hearings:
- Affected individuals must be given an opportunity for a personal hearing, with all proceedings documented.
Final Orders:
- After hearing the concerned party, the authority must issue a detailed final order, clearly explaining the decision to demolish and whether the violation is compoundable.
Appeal and Judicial Review:
- A 15-day window for appeals or objections is mandated, during which no demolition can occur unless stayed by a higher authority.
Demolition Process:
- Before any demolition, authorities are required to prepare an inspection report and document the process via video. The demolition proceedings should be transparent, with full details provided to the public through a digital portal.
The Court also warned that any violation of these guidelines would result in contempt charges and could hold officials personally liable for the cost of restitution and damages. In short, any unlawful demolition would make the officers involved financially responsible for restoring the demolished property.
These robust measures aim to ensure that demolitions are carried out only when absolutely necessary, with full accountability for any misuse of power.
