Bulldozer Justice is the practice of demolishing properties, of those people who are accused or convicted of various crimes, sometimes without following proper legal procedures. The Supreme Court (SC) of India laid down guidelines under Article- 142 of the constitution to ensure that due process is followed for demolishing the properties of citizens. SC ruled that demolishing the properties of an accused or convicted without following due process is “unconstitutional”. The case challenged the demolition of homes of individuals accused of crimes. It has been recently seen in various states such as in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand.

What is Article-142?
Article-142 of the constitution empowers the supreme court to pass decrees and orders necessary for complete justice in any case.
Article-142(1) allows the court to issue binding orders across India, enforceable as prescribed by law or the president.
Article-142(2) grants the court powers to secure attendance, discovery of documents, or punish contempt.

Over time, this provision has been used to ensure “complete justice” and address perceived legislative gaps. The Supreme Court has issued various guidelines on bulldozer justice such as providing notice of minimum 15 days to the property owner or occupier before any demolition can proceed, the notice must clearly outline the details of the structure to be demolished and reasons for demolition. A scheduled date for a personal hearing to provide an opportunity for the affected party to contest the demolition, the hearing must be free from any judicial biases. Authorities must notify the local collector or district magistrate via email after serving the notice, with an auto-reply acknowledgment to avoid any later confusions. The final order must be issued which include the owner and  justification for demolition as the only option, and whether the entire or partial structure is to be demolished. If a demolition order is issued, the supreme court mandated a 15 day period before implementation, allowing the owner or occupier to remove the structure or challenge the order in court. The authority must record the video of demolition and prepare an “inspection report” beforehand, along with a “demolition report”. The SC stated that if only one structure is demolished while similar ones are untouched, it may suggest the motive is to penalise the accused, not remove an illegal construction. SC clarified that its directions will not be applicable if there is any unauthorized structure in any public place
such as roads, streets, or footpaths, abutting railway lines or any river or water body and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law. This is the test of demolition which has been given by the sc. The Supreme Court guidelines have relevance in various legal aspects as well. It highlighted the importance of separation of powers, the verdict emphasises that the judiciary holds the power to decide guilt and determine if any state organs have overstepped their limits. The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions. The court stated that it is impermissible for the executive to impose demolition as punishment without a proper trial. This upholds the rule of law by ensuring that state actions do not overstep constitutional boundaries. These demolitions are also violating Article-14 of the constitution. By requiring that demolition actions be publicly scrutinised and accompanied by detailed records (such as video recordings and inspection reports), the guidelines aim to prevent abuses of power and foster greater accountability. Demolition affecting the entire property, including those who are not accused, would be unconstitutional as it infringes on the fundamental right to shelter which is ingrained in Article-21 right to life. It is also violative of Article-300A which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property except by law. This provision emphasizes that property can only be taken away following due process and under valid laws. The court’s insistence on due process and the separation of powers protects individuals from arbitrary state actions and ensures that rights are not violated under the guise of law enforcement. Such demolitions also violate Article-51 of Indian constitution which mandates that India must respect international treaties and laws. Article-87(3) of the Geneva Convention 1949 prohibits collective
punishments. The practice of bulldozer justice has been seen from a viewpoint of various concerns. It leads to rising punitive demolitions. A 2024 estimate by the housing and land rights network (HLRN) found that authorities demolished 153,820 homes in 2022 and 2023, displacing over 738,438 people across rural and urban areas. Article-17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that everyone has the right to own property individually or with others, and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property. SC acknowledged that demolition drives not only target the alleged perpetrators of an offence but also impose a form of “collective punishment” on their families by destroying their place of dwelling. These demolitions have been justified as actions against encroachment or unauthorised construction. Such state-sanctioned acts of punitive violence have been hailed as a form of “instant justice.” There are previous judicial rulings concerning the aforementioned issue, these are: Maneka Gandhi Case, 1978: The SC expanded the scope of procedure established by law; by ruling that it must be just, fair and reasonable, thereby introducing the principle of law and ;due process of law, therefore, demolitions based on suspicion or unfounded allegations contradict the principles of justice, fairness, and non-arbitrariness. Olga Tellis Case, 1985: The Supreme Court affirmed that Article-21, guaranteeing the right to life, also includes the right to livelihood and shelter. It means demolishing homes without due process violates constitutional rights. KT Plantation (P) Ltd Case, 2011: SC ruled that the legislation providing for deprivation of property under Article-300A must be just, fair, and reasonable. There are various challenges involved in effective implementation of SC guidelines. The political pressures to use demolition as a form of retribution or deterrence could persist, especially in politically charged environments. While the guidelines impose accountability on officials, historical examples, such as the court’s previous attempts to address issues like hate speech or mob lynching, suggest that similar efforts have not always led to substantial outcomes or accountability. There remains a risk that local authorities or officials may find ways to circumvent these rules, especially in regions where judicial oversight is weaker. The guidelines alone may not be sufficient to change the broader cultural and institutional practices that allow for such actions in the first place. All state actions must be in strict compliance with the law. The legal system must distinguish between criminal justice and collective punishment, ensuring the presumption of innocence is upheld. Specialized tribunals should be established to specifically deal with disputes related to property demolitions having powers to review government decisions. Mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration should be actively promoted as an effective way to resolve disputes related to property rights and demolitions. It is vital to create detailed rehabilitation plans for individuals impacted by demolitions having provisions for alternative housing, livelihood support, and access to mental health services.

This article is authored by Anshika Jindal, who was the top 40 scorer in the ADR quiz competition organized by Lets Learn Law.