Case Summary: Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024) | Right to Shelter

This case summary presents the judgment's background, legal issues, findings, and the Supreme Court's directives aimed at regulating the exercise of demolition powers by authorities.

Case Title: In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No.295 OF 2022

Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Judgment on: November 13, 2024

Facts

The case arose from a series of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, filed on behalf of individuals whose properties were demolished by state authorities on allegations of involvement in criminal activities. The petitioners contended that these demolitions were undertaken without due process, violating the rule of law and fundamental rights. Petitioners sought directives from the Supreme Court restraining the executive from demolishing properties without following the established legal process. The State argued that the demolitions were necessitated due to unauthorized structures, often coinciding with the accused persons' properties.

The Court's decision in this case touches upon core principles of the Constitution, the doctrine of public trust, and the essential rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

Issues

• Whether the executive can demolish accused persons' properties without due legal process.
• Whether the executive is exceeding its mandate by inflicting punitive measures that belong within the judiciary’s realm.
• Whether demolitions as punitive measures infringe on the accused’s constitutional rights under Article 21.
• Whether the demolition of structures impacts innocent family members residing on the premises and whether such action constitutes unlawful collective punishment.

Judgment

The Supreme Court undertook this matter to clarify the limits of executive power in enforcing demolition actions, particularly against individuals merely accused or even convicted of crimes.

I. Rule of Law

The Court reaffirmed the principle of the rule of law, holding that no individual can suffer penalties without established legal processes. This concept is foundational to democratic governance and mandates that all citizens, regardless of status, are equal before the law. The Court emphasized that executive actions lacking judicial oversight in imposing punishments are antithetical to the rule of law.

The Court cited multiple landmark decisions, such as Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, to illustrate the centrality of the rule of law in ensuring fairness and justice. It highlighted that any deviation from this principle risks eroding public trust in the judiciary and government.

II. Separation of Powers

The judgment underscored the doctrine of separation of powers, which divides governance responsibilities among the legislature, executive, and judiciary to prevent any single branch from assuming complete authority. The Court expressed concern over instances where executive bodies effectively administered punitive actions without judicial involvement, violating this principle. It reiterated that adjudicatory powers lie solely with the judiciary, ensuring fair and unbiased resolution of disputes.

III. Doctrine of Public Trust and Public Accountability

The Court drew from the doctrine of public trust, arguing that public officials are trustees of citizens’ rights. It held that demolitions carried out arbitrarily without transparency or adherence to legal norms represent a breach of this trust. Citing Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the judgment stressed that government officials must act transparently, adhering strictly to lawful procedures to maintain public trust.

IV. Rights of the Accused Under the Constitution

The Court emphasized that accused individuals, whether under trial or convicted, retain certain inalienable rights. These include the right to dignity and protection from arbitrary state action, guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment drew from precedents like Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent, Central Jail to stress that even convicted individuals cannot be denied their basic human rights and due process.

V. Principles of Criminal Law: Presumption of Innocence and Natural Justice

A central tenet of criminal law is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Court noted that administrative demolitions based solely on accusations ignore this principle and undermine the fairness inherent in natural justice. Citing legal scholars like H.L.A. Hart and John Rawls, the judgment emphasized that all legal proceedings must allow for a fair trial and due process, free from arbitrary or prejudiced actions by authorities.

VI. Right to Shelter

The right to shelter was upheld as a fundamental right under Article 21, encompassing more than mere physical structure but extending to personal dignity, family stability, and psychological security. Referencing Chameli Singh v. State of UP, the judgment asserted that depriving individuals and their families of shelter without a fair trial and due process is unconstitutional.

The Court recognized that the right to a home is not only a personal aspiration but also a basic human right embedded in the social and economic fabric of the country.

VII. Permissibility of Collective Punishment

The Court ruled that punishing families or communities for the alleged crimes of one individual is constitutionally impermissible. Drawing from Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, the judgment held that collective punishment is incompatible with criminal jurisprudence in India, which requires personal liability for punishment.

Directions Issued by the Court

To ensure due process in demolition cases, the Court issued the following key directions:

• Issuance of Notice: No demolition can proceed without prior show-cause notice served with a minimum 15-day response period. This notice must detail the alleged violation and allow the affected party a fair opportunity to respond.
• Right to Personal Hearing: The designated authority must provide a personal hearing to the property owner or occupier, documenting the proceedings for transparency.
• Final Order Compliance: The final demolition order must include reasons, an evaluation of the possibility for regularization, and whether only part of the structure could be removed to address the violation.
• Appellate and Judicial Scrutiny: A 15-day stay on demolition orders after issuance allows the affected party to file an appeal. If no stay is granted, the demolition should proceed.
• Transparency in Demolition Execution: Demolition proceedings should be video-recorded, with a detailed report prepared and submitted for public record.
• Accountability and Contempt Consequences: The Court warned that any official violating these directions would face contempt charges and could be held personally responsible for restitution costs if demolitions are deemed unlawful.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state actions, particularly in matters where fundamental rights, such as the right to shelter, dignity, and due process, are at stake. The Supreme Court’s directives aim to ensure fair procedures and accountability among public officials, strengthening public trust in democratic institutions.

By mandating strict compliance with procedural safeguards, the judgment protects citizens from executive overreach, affirming that governance must always operate within the bounds of law and justice.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment