Demolitions and due process: the Supreme Court's 2024 guidelines

In several states in the early 2020s, houses and shops belonging to people accused of crimes, or to their families, were demolished by municipal or development authorities, sometimes shortly after an alleged offence or a communal incident. Critics described this pattern as bulldozer justice, arguing that demolition was being used as punishment without a trial. Authorities generally replied that the structures were unauthorised or encroachments, and that action was taken under municipal law.

The Supreme Court took up the issue in a suo motu matter concerning directions for demolition of structures. On 13 November 2024, a Bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and K. V. Viswanathan held that demolishing a person's home merely because that person is accused, or even convicted, of a crime, without following due process, is unconstitutional. The Court stressed the presumption of innocence, the right to shelter, and Article 300A of the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

The judgment laid down pan-India guidelines. Authorities must give at least 15 days' notice to the owner or occupier before demolition, with an opportunity to respond, and a further 15 days after a final order before execution, so that the person can remove the structure or challenge the order. Demolition must be videographed, inspection and demolition reports must be prepared, and a digital portal was to be set up within three months to display notices and orders.

The guidelines do not apply to unauthorised structures in public places such as roads, footpaths, railway lines, and water bodies, or where a court has already ordered demolition. The Court also said that if only one structure among similarly placed structures is demolished, that selectivity may indicate a punitive motive rather than bona fide enforcement. Officials who violate the guidelines face contempt proceedings and prosecution, and affected persons are entitled to compensation.

Reporting since the judgment has suggested uneven implementation, with further demolitions challenged in courts and compensation ordered in at least one Prayagraj case. The guidelines therefore remain a useful test case: a clear judicial rule is only as strong as the local administration that must follow it, and as the courts and citizens who insist on it.