‘Bulldozer justice’ by the executive was troublesome at so many different levels that it was surprising how the drastic punishment was allowed to be replicated in several states for years. It militated against the basic principles of the rule of law, right to life, right to shelter, and the rights of an accused protected by the Constitution. The ultra-slow grind of the windmill of justice ended last week when the Supreme Court declared that snap demolition of homes of any accused or even a convict was unlawful without following due process. The judges announced a series of safeguards to rein in overzealous public officers who ordered instant demolition.
Dwelling on the constitutional separation of powers, the court said the executive cannot go beyond its remit to become a judge, decide that an accused is guilty, and punish him by demolishing his properties. Since the executive exercises its powers as a trustee of the citizens, its actions must be consistent with maintaining public trust. Arbitrary demolition of houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime is contrary to the principles of the rule of law. The bench called out those who failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice, saying it was reminiscent of lawlessness where might alone was right. Even convicts awarded capital punishment have the constitutional safeguard of appeal in higher courts. The right to a fair trial is essential in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual liberties. Besides, how could the family of an accused be denied their right to shelter, it questioned.
The court set a 15-day notice period prior to the razing of a property so as to give the affected party time to challenge the order. Even those who do not wish to contest the order need sufficient time to vacate the premises, the verdict reasoned, adding: “Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.” Officials who flout the SC order would be liable to pay compensation out of their pockets. That said, the directions would not be applicable if there was an unauthorised structure in a public place and also in the case of an order for demolition by a court of law. With this speaking order, one hopes bulldozer justice would end for good. Arbitrary action against the rule of law has no place in a civilised society.
