There will be no Rule of Law if an officer starts behaving like a judge

Supreme Court’s Decision on Bulldozer Action

New Delhi – If the administration demolishes a person’s house solely because he is an accused in a criminal case, such action completely contradicts the principle of the ‘Rule of Law’. The Supreme Court has stated that if an administrative officer, like a judge, punishes a person accused of a crime by demolishing his property, it violates the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature. The court has not approved the practice of using bulldozers on the houses of accused individuals.

In this case, the court ruled that if a property is demolished without a 15-day notice, the officer responsible for such a demolition, must rebuild it at his expense. The court also issued 15 guidelines. The Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh had demolished houses of accused persons using bulldozers, prompting petitions in the Supreme Court demanding guidelines for such actions.

Guiding Principles Set by the Court

Everyone dreams of having his own house with a courtyard. A person should never lose his dream of owning a house, which is a fundamental human aspiration. A person also never wants his house to be forcibly taken away from him. The question is whether authorities have the right to take away an accused person’s shelter. Whether someone is accused or convicted, can his house be demolished without following due procedure ? We considered the principles of justice in the criminal justice system, emphasizing that no pre-emptive decision should be taken against any accused person.

If an officer demolishes someone’s house in an inappropriate manner just because he is an accused, it is wrong. If an officer takes the law into his hands, it is illegal and action should be taken against him. Even an accused has certain rights. The Government and officials cannot act unilaterally or arbitrarily against accused or convicted persons without following the law. If an officer does so, there should be a mechanism to take action against him, which may include compensation for the damage caused by him. An officer acting with malicious intent cannot be exempted from accountability.

If a person is merely an accused, demolishing his property (house or shop) is entirely unconstitutional. Officials cannot determine who is guilty or be like judges and decide who is guilty. Misuse of power cannot be allowed, and bulldozer action cannot be taken against any accused person without following the due procedure. Such actions would be illegal, and if an officer takes the law into his hands, he is guilty.

When a building is selected for demolition while other structures are left untouched, it raises suspicions of malicious intent. An impression is created that the action is not a general enforcement against any construction but is specifically aimed at punishing the person whose matter is sub-judice.