‘Executive Cannot Replace Judiciary’: Supreme Court Talks Tough Against Bulldozer Justice

The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core function, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, on petitions seeking directions against “bulldozer actions” by various state governments, wherein the properties of persons accused of crimes are demolished.The court also said that if the executive demolishes the house of a person arbitrarily merely because he is accused, it violates the principle of separation of powers.The remarks came as the court pronounced its judgment on laying down pan-India directives governing demolitions of unauthorised structures after several petitions were filed before the court alleging that demolitions were carried out by The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core several state authorities without sufficient notice.The verdict was delivered by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

HERE’S ALL WHAT SUPREME COURT SAID ON BULLDOZER JUSTICE

• Having a home is a longing that never fades. It is the dream of every family to have a house. An important question is whether the executive should be permitted to take away shelter as a major infliction of penalty.The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic government. The issue regards fairness in the criminal justice system, which mandates that the legal process should not prejudge the guilt of the accused.

• We have dealt with the separation of powers, as to how executive and judicial wings work in their respective spheres. Adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary. The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core function.
• If the executive demolishes the house of a person arbitrarily merely because he is an accused, it violates the principle of separation of powers. Public officials who take the law into their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability. If any officer of the state has abused his power or acted in total arbitrary or in a malafide manner, he cannot be spared.
• The executive cannot declare a person guilty. If based only on an allegation, it demolishes his house, it would strike at the basic principle of the Rule of Law. The executive cannot become a judge and decide to demolish an accused’s property.
• When a particular structure is chosen for demolition, and the rest of similar properties are not touched, the presumption could be that the real motive was not legal structure, but the action of penalising without trial.
• The question to be considered is, if only one person residing in the house is an accused, would authorities be permitted to demolish the entire structure and remove shelter from the heads of persons who are not directly or indirectly related to the crime? The constitutional scheme and criminal jurisprudence will not permit the same.
• It is not a happy sight to see women, children dragged to the street in the night. However, these directions will not be applicable if there is any unauthorised construction on public land, also where there is a demolition order by a Court of Law.
• No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in local municipal laws or within 15 days from the date of service, whichever is later.

In an interim order passed on September 17, the Justice Gavai-led bench had paused all demolition actions across the country, except with its permission.