Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 - In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures
Date: 13 November 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice B.R. Gavai
Advocates: Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shri M.R. Shamshad, Shri Sanjay Hegde, Shri Tushar Mehta (Solicitor General of India), and others
Acts and Sections:
Constitution of India, Article 32
Municipal and Urban Planning Acts
Cited Judgements:
Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308
Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain (1976) 2 SCR 347
National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) 1 SCC 742
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) 8 SCR 1
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India, in its recent judgement on the demolition of structures, has reiterated and underscored the foundational principles of constitutional governance, particularly focusing on the rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights guaranteed to citizens under the Constitution. The Honorable Justice B.R. Gavai led the discussion on whether the executive has the authority to demolish properties without due process in cases where individuals are accused of criminal activity. This judgment serves as a significant commentary on the scope and limitations of executive power, emphasizing the protection of individual rights and accountability within public trust.
Rule of Law as the Cornerstone
The rule of law is integral to the Constitution, establishing that no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Honorable Justice Gavai cited Lord Denning's timeless words from Southam v. Smout, reinforcing the principle that “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown… but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement – unless he has justification by law.” This sentiment encapsulates the Court's stance that executive action cannot override legal protections, particularly in the absence of judicial oversight.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Safeguards
The judgment reiterates that while the Constitution does not adopt a rigid model of separation of powers, it mandates a balanced distribution of powers to safeguard against potential overreach. Honorable Justice Gavai stated, “The Executive cannot replace the Judiciary in performing its core functions,” underscoring that punitive measures like demolition should only occur following an independent judicial determination. This separation is essential in preserving citizens’ rights, particularly the presumption of innocence in criminal cases.
Doctrine of Public Trust and Accountability
Justice Gavai also invoked the doctrine of public trust, which mandates that executive actions align with the trust placed in public officials by the citizens. This doctrine implies that government actions must be fair, transparent, and in the public's best interest. The Court directed that demolition orders should strictly follow due process, including issuing show cause notices, allowing for replies, and providing adequate time for appeals. Additionally, the judgement holds public officers accountable for any misuse of power, suggesting punitive measures against erring officials.
Right to Shelter as a Fundamental Right
In the judgment, Honorable Justice Gavai quoted a Hindi poem to emphasize that the right to shelter is intrinsic to human dignity and security. The Court observed that housing represents stability and well-being, making it unjust for the executive to deprive individuals of this right without lawful justification. The judgment calls for strict adherence to legal procedures, underscoring that demolitions based solely on allegations without judicial review violate constitutional protections.
The Court’s Directives and Pan-India Guidelines
In response to the issues raised in the petitions, the Court proposed creating comprehensive, Pan-India guidelines to standardize procedures around property demolitions involving criminal accusations. These guidelines require the following:
Issuance of a detailed show cause notice specifying the grounds for demolition, alleged violations, and legal provisions.
Proper service of notice, allowing sufficient time for the accused to respond.
Inclusion of a personal hearing for the accused before any final demolition order.
Provisions for appeals, ensuring judicial oversight and due process.
This approach intends to prevent arbitrary demolitions and preserve the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution, thereby ensuring that punitive measures are not used as extrajudicial penalties.
The Significance of Rule of Law in Democratic Governance
The judgment underscores the "rule of law" as a foundational principle, emphasizing that “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.” The Court highlights that this principle is essential to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power by government officials, noting, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” This observation reiterates that executive action, particularly one affecting fundamental rights, must be conducted within legal bounds and under judicial oversight.
Separation of Powers and Prevention of Executive Overreach
Honorable Justice Gavai emphasizes the separation of powers, noting that the Constitution has structured the roles of the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary to function independently while maintaining a delicate balance. He stated, “Our Constitution does not contemplate the assumption, by one organ or part of the State, of functions that essentially belong to another.” This separation prevents overreach and maintains checks and balances within governance. The judgement thus implies that executive actions, like demolitions, must be subject to judicial review and cannot be used as punitive measures without trial.
Conclusion
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has reinforced the need for accountability, transparency, and respect for the rule of law within executive functions. Honorable Justice Gavai’s judgment is a reminder that due process is not a mere procedural formality but an essential safeguard of constitutional rights. This judgment not only curtails arbitrary demolitions but also establishes a precedent that upholds citizens' rights to property and dignity, irrespective of accusations or societal status. The judgment underscores that in a democratic nation, legal principles must guide government actions, and public trust should be maintained through fairness and adherence to law.
ความคิดเห็น