MC Explains: Why the courts consider bulldozer demolitions controversial?

Bulldozer demolitions and the law behind it

Earlier this month, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (HC) pulled up the local administration of Ujjain for demolishing a property without complying with the principles of natural justice and law. Furthermore, the court directed the administration to pay Rs 1 lakh to the owner of the property as compensation.

The court said, “It has become fashionable for the local administration to demolish any house by drawing up proceedings, without complying with the principle of natural justice, and publicise the demolition in the papers.” By principle of natural justice, the court meant that the owner of the property is not granted an opportunity to be heard.

“It appears that a criminal case was registered against one of the family members of the petitioners and demolition activities were carried out,’’ the HC further observed. The government demolishing the houses of alleged criminals without assigning a reason has come to be commonly termed ‘bulldozer justice.’

While the courts have decided on a hands-off approach, leaving it to the administration to decide on demolition of properties in accordance with law, there have been instances where the court has issued an interim stay.

Bulldozer justice, now common in many states, originated in Uttar Pradesh. After the `encounter’ killing of gangster Vikas Dubey, the local administration in Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh demolished his property, alleging irregularities. However, social activists claimed it was an act of vengeance by the government.

Moneycontrol explains why bulldozer justice is contentious.

What does the law say?

Every law in India has an in-built mechanism to prevent arbitrariness and the use of unfair methods, such as demolition. In a case pertaining to the impounding of Maneka Gandhi’s passport, the Supreme Court (SC) had said that government action must be per the procedure laid down in law, and not arbitrary or oppressive.

The SC and the HCs have repeatedly held that demolition of a property without prior notice or hearing the other side, will be deemed illegal. Thus, all local administrative bodies must serve a show-cause notice and hear out the defendant before proceeding with the demolition.

In many cases, the accused had not even been convicted of the crime by the trial court, leading to speculation about extra-constitutional punishment by the state.

In many cases, it has been argued in court that the persons whose properties were demolished were not even served a notice. Many writ petitions have been filed in the courts to prevent demolition on the ground that it will deprive people of their livelihood. In fact, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has on many occasions said that the SC will hear cases of illegal demolition on an urgent basis.

Recent instances of court’s interference

In April 2022, Jahangirpuri, in Delhi, witnessed violent clashes, including stone pelting, arson, and firing, between two communities during a Hanuman Jayanti procession. Two days later, the Delhi administration commenced a demolition drive in the area to remove encroachments.

Locals alleged that the demolition was being carried out as an act of revenge, against the violence.

The Supreme Court ordered an immediate stay, even without the case being listed on its board. The court asked the authorities to halt the bulldozers with immediate effect. When the demolition continued, the matter was mentioned before the court again.

This time the court said they “would take a serious view” of the issue, and the demolition eventually halted. However, the court did not say whether the demolition was legal.

Later in 2022, Jamiat Ulema E Hind, a Muslim religious body, moved the SC asking it to halt all such demolitions across the country. The SC refused to do so, and said: “If, under municipal laws, the construction is unauthorised, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain municipal authorities?” The SC noted that if a blanket order on demolitions is passed, it will make it difficult for municipal authorities to function.