Bulldozer action judgment: Supreme Court guards against State overreach

THE Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong judgment on pleas challenging the use of bulldozers by authorities across the country.

Exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court has issued comprehensive guidelines to regulate and restrain ‘bulldozer actions’ undertaken by authorities as a punitive measure against individuals accused or convicted of criminal offences.

“It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period,” observed the Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan.

It is pertinent to note that the Bench, in its Order of September 2, 2024, requested counsels appearing for the parties to submit their suggestions to assist the court in formulating appropriate measures.

After carefully analysing these submissions, the court has now issued a set of guidelines aimed at addressing the concerns raised regarding ‘bulldozer actions’ by the authorities.

Let us examine how the Supreme Court, in issuing these guidelines, upholds the rule of law and the constitutional promises enshrined in fundamental rights.

Background

The term ‘bulldozer justice’ has gained traction in public discourse, yet it is deeply controversial. To begin with, the term itself is problematic, as it attempts to attach the notion of ‘justice’ to actions that may be legally questionable or outrightly illegal.

Actions taken by any authority that bypass due process or undermine legal protections cannot rightly be associated with justice. Justice is inherently tied to principles of fairness, due process and adherence to established legal frameworks. It is, therefore, crucial to maintain a clear distinction between true justice, grounded in legality and due process, and actions that fall outside these boundaries.

The judgment arose from a series of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. At the core of the dispute was the claim that demolitions had been used as a tool of collective punishment against individuals merely accused or convicted of criminal offences.

The petitioners contended that this punitive approach bypassed established judicial procedures, contravening fundamental rights and procedural fairness enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including Articles 14 (right to equality), 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and 300A (right to property).

Specifically, the issue pertains to whether such actions can be taken without providing the accused or convicted individuals an opportunity to contest the decision or without ensuring that all procedural requirements, including the right to a fair trial and due process, are strictly observed.

This includes evaluating whether the constitutional protections related to property rights and the rule of law are being upheld in cases where such drastic measures are considered.

The Supreme Court observes that, in considering the matter at hand, it is imperative to examine the principle of the rule of law, which forms the cornerstone of democratic governance.

Additionally, the court took into account the rights enshrined in the Constitution, which safeguard individuals against arbitrary State actions. The court further highlighted the importance of fairness within the criminal justice system, emphasising that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of the accused.

Moreover, the court noted the necessity of reflecting upon the doctrine of separation of powers and the public trust vested in government officials in relation to the offices they hold.

Due process and right to be heard

The Supreme Court has observed that the importance and purpose of the principles of natural justice have been succinctly summed up by Lord Megarry in the case of John versus Rees, where he emphasised that natural justice ensures fairness in the decision-making process, safeguarding individuals against arbitrary actions and ensuring that they are given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The court reiterated that these principles are foundational to maintaining the rule of law and protecting the rights of individuals in all proceedings, including those involving punitive actions by the State.

Further, the Supreme Court observed that the sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, where authorities have failed to adhere to the basic principles of natural justice and due process, evokes the image of a lawless state, where the principle of ‘might is right’ prevails. This underscores the need for adherence to constitutional safeguards and the rule of law in all State actions.

However, the most significant aspect of the Supreme Court's verdict is its emphasis on the injustice of penalising innocent family members of an accused person by demolishing their property.

The court rightly points out that it is unfair to hold spouses, children or parents accountable for a crime simply because they share a familial relationship with the accused.

As the court notes, “a pious father may have a recalcitrant son, and vice versa”. Punishing such individuals, who are not connected to the crime, by demolishing their homes or properties is not only a violation of natural justice but also an infringement of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.

This part of the judgment stands as a crucial reminder of the importance of protecting the rights of innocent individuals from arbitrary State action.

As the Supreme Court observed, to address the concerns of citizens regarding the arbitrary exercise of power by State officers and officials, it is deemed necessary to issue certain directions in the exercise of the court's power under Article 142 of the Constitution.

These directions include ensuring that proper notice is given, the receipt of Orders is acknowledged and individuals are provided with an opportunity to appeal any decisions made.

The Supreme Court’s judgment on bulldozer actions marks a crucial intervention to curb the arbitrary use of power by authorities. In an era where executive actions often risk bypassing due process, this ruling stands as a timely reminder that State authority must always be exercised within the bounds of the law.

By emphasising the need for procedural fairness and legal scrutiny, the court ensures that demolitions are not carried out without proper justification and safeguards.

Prospectively, this judgment serves as an important corrective measure, reinforcing the need for accountability and protecting citizens from the potential misuse of State power. It restores confidence in the judicial system’s ability to check arbitrary actions and ensures that the rights of individuals are protected, upholding the foundational principles of justice and fairness.