Bulldozer Verdict: Public Office is Not a License for Unchecked Power

At a time when the state appears to be bypassing judicial oversight, the SC's ruling reclaims the latter's role.

This landmark ruling, which criticises the executive’s reliance on demolitions as a form of extrajudicial punishment, resonates far beyond the specific cases it addresses.

(Photo: The Quint)

The Supreme Court’s recent verdict, by Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan, condemning arbitrary demolitions by state authorities serves as a crucial reaffirmation of the Constitution’s bedrock values, animated by the rule of law, the doctrine of separation of powers, and profound respect for the dignity of each citizen.

This landmark ruling, which criticises the executive’s reliance on demolitions as a form of extrajudicial punishment, resonates far beyond the specific cases it addresses. It reinforces the Constitution’s core ideals, reasserting the judiciary’s indispensable role as the ultimate guardian of the rule of law, as the bulwark preserving the balance of institutional power, and as the vigilant defender of fundamental rights. 

By placing limits on executive actions that threaten judicial authority, the court has taken an important stand against an emerging trend toward unchecked state action. At a time when the machinery of the state appears increasingly willing to bypass judicial oversight, this decision reclaims the judiciary’s role as a necessary counterweight, ensuring that executive powers remain constrained by constitutional principles.

In doing so, the court sends a powerful message: that the rights of individuals cannot be subjected to the arbitrary whims of the state and that no arm of the government may unilaterally extend its reach beyond its constitutionally defined role. 

The Supreme Court, in this ruling, reaffirms the rule of law as a living shield against the tendencies of unchecked authority. The power to establish guilt or innocence, and to determine punishment, lies exclusively within the judicial domain: a principle that the executive cannot, under any circumstances, usurp.

By engaging in arbitrary demolitions, the executive has illegitimately trespassed into the judiciary’s sacred territory, assuming the role of prosecutor, judge, and executioner in one fell swoop. Such acts, the court declares, constitute nothing less than a “travesty” of the legal system.

The judgment further criticises such executive actions as an “unruly giant” that must be curtailed before it crushes the very rights it is sworn to protect. As the Court poignantly states, "The rule of law is not an empty phrase but a substantive principle that resists the encroachment of arbitrary will."  

At the core of this judgment lies a fundamental principle: that public office is not a license for unchecked power but a position of stewardship, bound by the Constitution and the principles of transparency, fairness, and equality. This decision reiterates the ‘doctrine of public trust’, which views state officials not as masters of their domains but as trustees of the public interest.

To exceed the authority granted by the Constitution is not merely an overreach but a breach of trust, a violation that undermines the legitimacy of the state’s mandate. When officials violate due process by demolishing homes without following the rule of law, they betray the public trust. Arbitrary demolitions conducted under the guise of routine administrative action breed fear rather than respect, eroding the fabric of social cohesion.

The court meaningfully remarks on the “chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building,” an image that evokes terror, betraying a “might is right” mentality that is at odds with democratic governance. Such actions, the court rules, are “no less than a declaration of war upon the rule of law,” a stark warning against the executive’s unchecked exercise of power that resonates with a call to reclaim government accountability. 

The judgment also offers an impassioned defence of individual rights, particularly the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. The judgment underscores that even the accused, and indeed even those convicted, are entitled to their constitutional protections.

To demolish a home or penalise someone based on mere suspicion is to assume guilt prematurely, to enforce punishment without trial, and to strike at the heart of human dignity. The demolitions executed without legal notice or a hearing betray this constitutional promise, reducing the protections of due process to a hollow shell. “These actions,” the judgment states, “are inimical to the constitutional compact itself, an affront to justice, and an act of governance unworthy of the name.” 

The judgment also deals with the issue of selective enforcement. To single out certain individuals for punitive demolition while sparing others signals a misuse of power, an exercise of state authority as retribution rather than impartial law enforcement. The court condemns this practice, declaring that justice must remain “blind to all but the truth,” immune to biases and immune to influence.

When laws are enforced selectively, the promise of equality before the law, the bedrock of any democracy, is corroded. Justice ceases to be justice when it becomes a tool for vendetta, a weapon in the hands of those who would distort it to serve their own ends.  

The Court’s decision, with its mandate for compensation in cases of unlawful demolitions, marks a significant step toward ensuring justice and accountability. By elevating compensation from a procedural requirement to a moral imperative, the judgment underscores the state’s obligation to acknowledge its transgressions and provide restitution.

Additionally, the warning of contempt proceedings against noncompliant officials lends weight to the directives, signalling a strong stance against future violations of constitutional safeguards. 

However, despite its laudable reaffirmation of fundamental principles, the judgment is not without its shortcomings. The exception carved out for unauthorised structures on public spaces, such as roads, footpaths, and water bodies, as well as court-ordered demolitions, risks becoming a loophole for misuse.

As seen with the interim stay order issued earlier, municipal authorities have already leveraged similar provisions to justify punitive demolitions under the pretext of clearing encroachments, often targeting marginalized communities.

Equally troubling is the court’s failure to address the unconstitutional demolitions carried out while the petitions were pending. By leaving these injustices uncorrected, the ruling inadvertently allows space for executive overreach to persist under the guise of lawful action. 

(This article has been written by Shubham Kumar, Lawyer, Supreme Court of India. The author can be reached on Twitter at @shubhamkumarrml. Views are personal.)