New Delhi: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that state authorities could not demolish the dwelling of a person accused or convicted of a crime under &ldquo;bulldozer justice&rdquo;. The apex court deemed citing the criminal background of the concerned person and delivering such bulldozer action illegal and unconstitutional. 
A bench comprising Justice&nbsp;BR Gavai&nbsp;and&nbsp;Justice KV Viswanathan&nbsp;held that state authorities cannot determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person and demolish such person&rsquo;s house as punishment. The responsibility to determine the guilt of a person rests with the judiciary, said the bench.
&ldquo;If a property is demolished only because person is accused, it is wholly unconstitutional. Executive cannot determine who is guilty and cannot become a judge to decide if he is guilty or not; such an act will be transgressions of limits. The chilling side of bulldozer reminds that constitutional values and ethos do not allow such abuse of power,&rdquo;&nbsp;the court said.
Pertinently, the court held that such bulldozer action also cannot be against someone who is convicted of a crime too since such an action by the executive will be illegal and amount to taking the law into their own hands.
The bench further stated that demolishing the house of a person also affects the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution. It becomes a collective punishment against the family members of such accused person, it noted.
&ldquo;When a structure is suddenly selected for demolition while others remain, then mala fide is writ large and presumption could be drawn that action was not to bring down the illegal structure but to penalize the person before a court of law does so,&rdquo; court noted.
Therefore, the court held that public/ government officials responsible for such illegal and arbitrary actions should be made liable including by way of compensation.
Towards this end, the court said that it has laid down binding guidelines to be followed by the state.
The bench held that while the state is obligated to maintain law and order and take action against lawbreakers, there cannot be an arbitrary exercise of such power by the state and property of an individual cannot be arbitrarily taken away from him.
The top court also made it clear that the executive cannot replace the judiciary when it comes to deciding the legality or illegality of a property. Hence, it will be unjust of government authorities demolish properties of a person accused of crime without following due process of law.
&ldquo;State cannot replace judiciary in performing core functions and will be wholly unjust if state demolishes such properties without following due process of law. If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes property of a person only on the basis that person is accused of crime it violates separation of powers,&rdquo;&nbsp;the bench ruled.
The directions came&nbsp;in a batch of petitions raising grievance&nbsp;against Central and state governments&nbsp;bulldozing homes&nbsp;or shops of accused in criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.
Earlier, as an interim measure, the court&nbsp;had banned the authorities from demolishing properties of those suspected of criminal activities, without first seeking the court&rsquo;s permission.

Supreme Court calls out state authorities over demolishing homes of accused —File Photo

Top court upholds rights of accused, reiterates delivering justice rests with judiciary

Bulldozer Justice Unconstitutional; Officials Should Be Penalized: SC

Top court upholds rights of accused, reiterates delivering justice rests with judiciary

November 13, 2024 | 12:14 IST