The Supreme Court of India, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, has taken a crucial step by issuing guidelines on the controversial practice of bulldozing homes belonging to accused individuals without due process. This long-overdue decision brings some much-needed clarity to an issue that has been both legally questionable and morally troubling. At the heart of the ruling is a clear statement that demolishing someone’s home without proper notice and due process is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. As the court rightly pointed out, a house is more than a mere structure—it represents a family’s dream, security, and dignity. The bench emphasized that merely being related to an accused person does not justify the destruction of a family’s home. This is a crucial reaffirmation of the constitutional rights that protect every citizen. However, the court was careful not to overreach into the domain of the executive. The ruling acknowledges that state governments have the authority to demolish illegal structures but insists that such actions must strictly adhere to the law. The key message from the Supreme Court is that due process cannot be bypassed, even in the name of law and order. No government, however powerful, can take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
The practice of bulldozing homes gained momentum under Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who initiated this tactic as a show of strength against alleged criminals and anti-social elements. This approach was quickly adopted by other states, including some run by opposition parties. While proponents argue that these actions have led to a reduction in crime, particularly communal violence and atrocities against women, the methods used have raised serious concerns about the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s guidelines are explicit: demolitions must not proceed without prior notice, allowing the accused an opportunity to challenge the action in court. The court also recommended video documentation of demolitions to ensure transparency. These measures are intended to prevent the misuse of power by overzealous state officials who may resort to bulldozing as a form of instant punishment without any legal backing.
However, the guidelines stop short of being legally binding. This raises the question of whether state governments will actually comply. While the judiciary has provided a framework, it cannot directly enforce these guidelines without infringing on the executive’s powers. States may choose to interpret these guidelines in ways that suit their political agendas, potentially leading to further legal battles. Uttar Pradesh, for example, has justified its bulldozing actions as a necessary measure to curb anti-national activities. The state argues that these actions, though harsh, have led to a significant drop in violence. But at what cost? The unchecked use of bulldozers has resulted in collective punishment, which undermines the principles of justice and due process that are fundamental to a democracy. While the Supreme Court’s intervention is welcome, the real test will be in how the states and lower courts enforce these guidelines. If High Courts do not take a firm stand, citizens may find themselves repeatedly turning to the Supreme Court for relief, overburdening an already stretched judiciary. The onus is now on the states to ensure that any action taken in the name of law enforcement respects constitutional rights and follows due process. Ultimately, this issue is a delicate balancing act between maintaining law and order and upholding the rule of law. States must understand that governance cannot come at the expense of citizens’ fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has drawn the line—now it is up to the states to respect it.