By emphasizing due process, the Court has reinforced legal protections against arbitrary demolitions, limiting executive overreach
A historic Supreme Court verdict against “bulldozer justice” promises to have broad legal, social, and administrative impacts, addressing concerns around the unchecked, high-handed demolition of properties linked to criminal accusations. Such actions have often violated the fundamental tenets of the Indian Constitution.
This ruling has direct implications for BJP-ruled states like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Assam, and the Delhi Municipal Corporation, which have been accused of misusing administrative powers to punish marginalized sections of society without due legal process.
The concept of “bulldozer justice” was notably coined by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, earning him the nickname “Bulldozer Baba” among supporters.
The Court’s verdict marks a setback to his image, though he may not express regret for actions nullified by the ruling, which had previously jeopardized the constitutional guarantees afforded to all Indian citizens.
Social Implications
Protection of Marginalized Communities: The ruling acknowledges that bulldozer justice has disproportionately impacted marginalized groups. By mandating due process, the Court aims to prevent biased or retaliatory actions against vulnerable communities, promoting equal treatment under the law.
Also Read: Eroding Democracy: The Communal Politics Behind Uttar Pradesh’s New Laws
Public Trust in the Rule of Law: By condemning bulldozer justice, the Supreme Court seeks to rebuild public confidence in lawful governance, fostering trust that the state will not bypass legal safeguards to punish alleged offenders.
Awareness and Advocacy: This judgment may empower civil rights groups to challenge arbitrary demolitions, advocating for the rights of those affected by unilateral property destruction.
Administrative and Policy Impact
Reduced Arbitrary Actions: Administrative bodies may now face restrictions against immediate demolition practices that bypass judicial processes, holding them accountable to legal frameworks designed to protect against arbitrary punishment. This could encourage a fairer and more equitable application of laws.
Policy Revisions at the State Level: States that have regularly employed demolitions as a form of “bulldozer justice” may need to revisit their policies, ensuring alignment with constitutional rights to property and due process. This could result in tighter guidelines and even statutory changes.
Limit on Executive Power: The Court’s disapproval of unilateral demolition reinforces the separation of powers, signaling that executive decisions must strictly adhere to legal boundaries.
Legal and Judicial Consequences
Strengthened Due Process: The ruling reaffirms that demolitions must respect due process, requiring legal scrutiny rather than administrative discretion. This will likely lead to the implementation of judicial approval for demolition orders, protecting citizens’ rights against arbitrary state actions.
Increased Judicial Oversight: The ruling could result in heightened court involvement in cases where demolitions serve as punitive responses to alleged crimes, particularly in instances involving minority or marginalized groups.
Pressure for National Guidelines: The Supreme Court suggested nationwide standards for property demolitions related to criminal cases, which could formalize rules for state authorities to follow, reducing current ambiguities.
Supreme Court Guidelines on Demolitions
Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan made impactful assertions, noting that demolitions based solely on accusations violate fundamental rights. The Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and mandated a 15-day notice period, allowing tenants or owners time to challenge demolition orders or make necessary arrangements. This highlights the right to shelter under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court warned that contempt proceedings could follow violations of these guidelines, and responsible officials may face compensation liabilities for restitution. This ruling stemmed from controversial demolitions in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, alongside a Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind petition challenging demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri in 2022.
Data show that state laws on demolitions were often violated in Uttar Pradesh, a state pioneering “bulldozer justice.” The Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, requires a minimum 15-day notice before unauthorized structures can be removed, with a right to appeal. However, the 2022 demolitions, where structures were razed without due process, led to the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind’s petition to the Supreme Court.
In another significant instance, former Chief Justice Chandrachud, before his retirement on Nov 9, along with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay ₹25 lakh as compensation to a man whose home was demolished in 2019 for a road-widening project. The Court expressed concern over state actions that could potentially use demolitions as selective reprisals, noting that citizens’ voices must not be stifled by the threat of losing their homes.
In Rajasthan, demolition laws under Section 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, require prior written notice detailing the grounds for eviction. Following communal tensions in Udaipur, authorities issued a quick notice before demolishing a house on alleged forest land encroachment, contravening local law requirements for a reasonable response period. Section 91 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, restricts eviction orders to those issued only by a Tehsildar.
The Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, stipulates that any unauthorized building alteration or construction may be removed, but only after notice. However, this was ignored when a labourer’s home was demolished immediately after his son’s arrest, raising rights violation concerns.
Under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the commissioner can remove illegal structures but must give a reasonable opportunity for owners to dispute the action. The Jahangirpuri incident in 2022 highlighted the need for due process, intensifying scrutiny on such practices.
In Haryana, demolitions are governed by Section 261 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994, which mandates a notice period with an opportunity to contest. However, after communal violence in Nuh in 2023, authorities demolished over 440 structures, mostly affecting Muslim households. Although similar to Delhi’s DMC Act, Haryana’s compliance period is notably shorter—only three days, leaving owners little time for appeals.
Strengthening Accountability and Legal Protections
The Supreme Court’s new guidelines aim to check arbitrary demolitions and uphold legal protections, particularly for vulnerable tenants. These regulations emphasize that adequate notice, transparency, and due process must be integral to any demolition order. While state laws vary, adherence to these guidelines will be essential in ensuring that demolitions respect both legal and constitutional rights, strengthening administrative accountability.
A Fundamental Shift in the Justice System
The Supreme Court of India’s recent ruling against “bulldozer justice” was a response to cases where properties of individuals accused of crimes, especially those involving communal violence, were demolished without legal due process.
The Court underscored that demolitions must be legally justified and cannot bypass established procedures. It criticized this practice for disproportionately impacting marginalized communities, violating human rights, and eroding public trust.
Also Read: COURTS & COMMUNAL POLITICS
In essence, this ruling reaffirms the constitutional right to due process, expected to curb the trend of using demolitions as extrajudicial punitive measures. The ruling marks a shift toward a justice system grounded in fairness, procedure, and accountability. 
K. S. Tomar
The writer, a senior political analyst, is a former Editor of the Hindustan Times' Rajasthan edition and has spent nearly four decades in journalism, including a six year stint in Nepal where he covered Sino-India-Nepal complex relationship and had a ringside seat to the Himalayan Kingdom's transition into democracy.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT