Mere Guidelines Are Not Enough. Officials Must Be Punished for Bulldozing Lives

The courts have made observations in the past but demolitions have continued. What would guidelines accomplish?

Demolitions of properties of alleged stone pelters is not justified in law.

(Photo: Deeksha Malhotra/The Quint)

The Supreme Court recently made some significant observations in a petition challenging the demolition of properties of people who have been accused of crimes. Questioning the legality of demolishing a house merely because the owner is accused of a crime, the court stated that it may frame national-level guidelines to address the issue. Justice Gavai strongly underlined, "Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.”  

These observations are crucial, as the court has yet to take a firm stand against the growing practice of such demolitions, rendering numerous families homeless. However, these comments and the guidelines alone may not be enough to curb the unchecked exercise of power by state authorities.

In fact, by issuing guidelines for these cases, the court risks misframing the issue as one of procedural propriety, when it is, in fact, part of a much larger problem. 

Bulldozers: The All-in-one Tool for 'Justice'

In recent years, bulldozers have increasingly been employed — and, in some cases, have replaced — the criminal justice system. Rather than being used to respond to illegal constructions after other methods of rectifying violations have been exhausted, they have become political instruments used to punish persons accused of certain crimes.

These have become an expression of the state's brute force against ordinary citizens, satisfying the political motives, while uprooting the lives of thousands, without any repercussions for the authorities. 

These extrajudicial demolitions, often attracting public approval and applause, are viewed as a form of instant justice — akin to mob violence or vigilante justice.  

Targeting Minority Communities

In several states, governments have systematically targeted citizens, predominantly from the Muslim community, by demolishing their properties with little to no adherence to legal procedures.

For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, an activist’s house was demolished for being erected without permission, soon after his arrest for calling a ‘bandh’.

Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, dozens of properties belonging to Muslims were razed after communal clashes and stone pelting. In Delhi and Nuh in Haryana, bulldozers were used to destroy hundreds of structures of persons allegedly involved in communal clashes. 

The Judiciary's Limited Intervention

Although many of these cases may involve genuine violations of building regulations, these demolitions have had little to do with them; instead, they function as tools of collective punishment, driven by a communal agenda. Despite this and the blatant illegality of these actions, the judiciary has largely failed to act. It has, however, occasionally voiced concerns. For example, the Punjab and Haryana High Court questioned the Haryana government on the Nuh demolitions, asking whether they amounted to “ethnic cleansing”.

The court observed, “We are constrained to issue notice to the State as it has come to our attention that the State of Haryana is using force and demolishing buildings on the pretext of riots occurring in Gurugram and Nuh... The issue also arises whether the buildings belonging to a particular community are being destroyed under the guise of law and order, amounting to ethnic cleansing.” 

Similarly, the Delhi High Court, remarked that “persons cannot be evicted with a bulldozer at their door step early in the morning or late in the evening, without any notice, rendering them completely shelter-less. A reasonable period has to be given to such persons and temporary location has to be provided to them before embarking on any demolition activities.” 

Despite these observations, demolitions have continued, and politicians have openly boasted about them, reaping political dividends. What would guidelines accomplish in such a situation?  

Framing the issue as a question of how power should be exercised to demolish properties risks overlooking the larger problem: the weaponisation of state power. Guidelines may not be a suitable remedy for this misuse of authority. 

If the guidelines are merely a reiteration of existing municipal laws or procedures for demolishing houses, they add little value. If they step further and lay down the rules and procedure for demolishing the homes of accused persons, they will perhaps be counterproductive. In fact,  the question arises is whether guidelines are really necessary for actions that are blatantly illegal?  

The Need for Accountability, Not Guidelines

What is really needed is a thorough investigation into the demolitions carried out by various state governments, examining whether due process was followed and why certain communities are disproportionately affected.

It must be ascertained in which cases backdated orders were issued, and whether notices were served, opportunities for making representations were given, and if these demolitions were fast-tracked only for certain offenders. These will expose any malafide intentions by local authorities. Such malafide conduct must be punished, officials held accountable, and victims adequately compensated.

If deterrence is deemed to be effective in preventing future violations, it must also serve to prevent unlawful, prejudiced, and politically motivated demolitions. 

The judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in these extrajudicial demolitions has only emboldened state authorities to continue bulldozing the lives of citizens. Demolitions must not be allowed to supplant legal procedures, especially when their impact can be significant. It is important that courts take a stronger stance against this brazen practice, acknowledging its roots in discriminatory and arbitrary politics, to which the rule of law cannot be held hostage.  

(Naveed Mehmood Ahmad is Team Lead, Crime & Punishment at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. This is an opinion article and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)