Introduction
Demolitions have become a new symbol given by some states to give justice in several regions of India. The tendency of government officials to demolish the property of alleged criminals without following the proper procedures has grown more commonplace. This thing is taking place more common in this modern India. Only the legal sanctions set forth in the relevant statutes may be used to punish criminal acts. At the moment, there is no criminal statute in the nation that stipulates the demolition of an offender’s home as a punishment for any offence. No legal justification can be found for the Parties’ assertion to the demolition of houses of criminals, The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] make rioting and inciting strife between various socioeconomic groupings crimes against public peace. None of the passages in this chapter call for the property to be demolished as retribution for the acts listed there.
Bulldozing House and its legal background
Bulldozers were frequently utilised to demolish buildings that had been built without a permit, But in states like Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and others, it increased in frequency in 2017. According to government officials, bulldozers are utilised as an extrajudicial instrument to combat antisocial elements.
The Indian government’s Bhartiya Janata Party then used the bulldozer to rally support during election campaigns in Uttar Pradesh, where Yogi Adityanath was dubbed “Bulldozer Baba” in March 20224. Additionally, Mr. Yogi asserted that his government throughout state election campaigns, this bulldozer tactic was used against criminals. He declared, “We use a special machine to construct motorways and highways. At the same time, we are using it to destroy the mafia that used human exploitation to construct their estates.”[1]
The comment was made by Chief Justice RM Chhaya while the high court was hearing a suo motu case regarding the demolition of an accused’s home in the Nagaon district of Assam’s Batadrava Police Station arson case. Following the purported murder in custody of a local fish dealer named Safikul Islam (39), who was arrested by police the previous evening, an enraged crowd set fire to the Batadrava Police Station on May 21. Safikul Islam was picked up by police. A day later, the district officials had allegedly bulldozed at least six homes, including Islam’s, in an effort to find drugs and weapons buried beneath the buildings. Bulldozing a house is not permitted by any criminal legislation, Justice Chhaya noted, “even if a very severe offence is under investigation by an agency. He emphasised that consent must be obtained before conducting any sort of search, adding, Tomorrow, if you need something, you will dig up my court chamber.”[2]
Rights of individual which are being violated
- Right to shelter
- Right to livelihood
- Article 300A
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
1 Right to shelter
In accordance with Indian Constitutional Article 19(1)(e)15 read in conjunction with Article 2116, the right to shelter is regarded as a fundamental right. In two rulings, the Supreme Court emphasised the significance of the right to shelter and acknowledged it as a basic right. According to the 1996 decision U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd.,[3] “The right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence assured in Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life under Article 21 (of the Constitution).” The right to shelter shall be regarded as an essential condition of the right to life which is a fundamental right, according to Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1996).
2 Right to livelihood
The right to a dignified existence, housing, and a means of subsistence are all included in the fundamental right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, according to Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985), And even if a party built a building illegally, not hearing their side of the story or giving them a fair chance to defend themselves is considered a violation of the rule of law and the natural justice principle.
3 violation of article 300A
The right to property protected by Article 300-A of the Indian Constitution is not only legally recognised but also a fundamental human right. No one “shall be deprived of his property except by the authority of the law,” according to Article 300A. Even Justice K. Chandru, a former judge of the Madras High Court, spoke out against the act of those house demolitions said “Article 300A is a powerful right,. He claimed that the politicisation of the bureaucracy was what led to demolitions. Acts like demolition, according to Justice Chandru, “were a nuclear button wielded against problem producers. It works on a cause-and-effect basis. provide them a chance to be heard and provide them notice if they have broken the building codes. Demolitions carried out right away without a court order are reminiscent of the Emergency era.”
4 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
Additionally, it is a well-established declaration right under the framework of international human rights law, to which India is a signatory. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), for instance, states in Article 25 that “everyone has the right to a level of maintaining a lifestyle that is sufficient for his family’s and his own health and well-being, including food, Clothing, housing, and medical care”. In addition, international law prohibits the government from interfering arbitrarily with a citizen’s right to property. No one “shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation,” according to Article 12 of the UDHR. Everyone has a right to legal protection from such interference or attacks, according to Article 12 as well.[4]
Court rulings
In Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (2010), a division bench of the Delhi High Court ruled that municipal authorities must first determine which residents are eligible for rehabilitation and relocation before evicting them from their homes. These residents must then be relocated to an alternative site where basic civic amenities that uphold their right to life and dignity are available. The Supreme Court upheld this decision in 2017.[5]
The Delhi High Court described delivering a show-cause notice to the involved party as a “mandatory requirement” in a ruling from 2010. The court had ruled that the service of the show-cause notice on the concerned person is mandated before the department, i.e., the MCD passes a demolition order against a party.
Even if someone has committed a crime and been found guilty, there is no court ruling that mandates that their home should be demolished. Therefore, when the government sends a bulldozer, it essentially sends the message that everyone who protests against us will be flattened, according to Mr. Joshi.[6]
In the case of Bruhat Bangalore Hotels Association v. State of Karnataka (2020), the Supreme Court of India ruled that it is illegal and impermissible to demolish a structure without following the proper legal procedures. The court further ruled that any action taken against property must be done so in conformity with applicable laws and after applying natural justice principles. Therefore, even if a person is suspected of living in a house, it is imperative to observe the law’s due process requirements before demolishing any property.
Narayan Shamrao Purushottamdas v. State of Maharashtra, a 2001 case. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, under rare circumstances where the crime committed is so serious as to shock society’s conscience, the court may order the demolition of a criminal defendant’s property as part of the penalty. The court also ruled that the demolition should be done fairly and sensibly and that the rights of any innocent people who could be harmed by it must be safeguarded.[7]
Conclusion
Just two of the factors causing majoritarian oppression are the demolition drive and the political misuse of municipal and civil laws. A disproportionate punishment is meted out to the accused, which goes against the notion of natural justice and the rule of law. The local government should be held responsible for the arbitrary use of its authority and refrain from doing so in an autocratic manner. The judiciary must intervene and defend the crucial principle of “checks and balances” in democratic India given how the political administration is acting in defiance of judicial standards. The ordering of the demolition of accused homes is a serious matter that requires following the rules of the law. Prior to taking any action against property, the Supreme Court of India emphasised the significance of abiding by the pertinent laws and natural justice principles. Although the court has ruled that in exceptional circumstances it is permissible to order a property’s demolition as part of the penalty, it has also emphasised that this must be done in a fair and reasonable manner while protecting the rights of innocent parties. Before ordering the destruction of someone’s home, it is imperative to adhere to the rule of law and respect everyone’s rights, regardless of whether they have been charged with or found guilty of a crime.
Author – Kashif humzah
Jamia Millia Islamia
[1] Lawrence Booth, adityanath: Yogi Adityanath’s bulldozer gives BJP mobility through tough UP election, Verve times (2022), https://vervetimes.com/adityanath-yogi-adityanaths-bulldozer-gives-bjp-mobility-through-tough-up-election/ (last visited Apr 16, 2023).
[2] India, Bulldozing of houses in name of investigation not provided under law: HC, @bsindia (2022), https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/bulldozing-of-houses-in-name-of-investigation-not-provided-under-law-hc-122111900012_1.html (last visited Apr 16, 2023).
[3] U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. v Friends Coop. Housing (1996), AIR 114
[4] Pujari Dharania, Bulldozer: An Instant Justice, https://www.juscorpus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/143.-Pujari-Dharani.pdf (last visited Apr 16, 2023).
[5] Vineet Bhalla, Why the trend of summarily demolishing properties of alleged criminals is patently illegal – The Leaflet, The Leaflet – An independent platform for cutting-edge, progressive, legal, and political opinion. (2022), https://theleaflet.in/why-the-trend-of-summarily-demolishing-properties-of-alleged-criminals-is-patently-illegal-an-explainer/ (last visited Apr 16, 2023).
[6] Geeta Pandey, How bulldozers became a vehicle of injustice in India, BBC News (2022), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-61837134 (last visited Apr 17, 2023).
[7] Pavan K Varma, Pavan K. Varma | Bulldozer justice’ unjust under all circumstances, Deccan Chronicle (2022), https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/columnists/261122/pavan-k-varma-bulldozer-justice-unjust-under-all-circumstance.html (last visited Apr 17, 2023).