The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly expressed strong disapproval of what has been termed "bulldozer justice," emphasizing that the executive branch cannot act as both judge and jury. This stance underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, particularly the right to shelter and due process.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai has been particularly vocal on this issue. Speaking at a legal event in Milan, Italy, in June 2025, he strongly criticized arbitrary demolitions, reiterating that the right to shelter is a fundamental right, not a charity. He emphasized that demolitions carried out without adhering to proper legal procedures violate the Constitution and represent an affront to the rule of law. This statement reflects growing concerns about executive overreach and reinforces the judiciary's role in safeguarding civil liberties.
CJI Gavai's comments in Milan echo a series of past Supreme Court judgments that have strictly opposed "bulldozer justice." The court has consistently held that state authorities must follow due process before evicting or demolishing homes, regardless of the allegations against the residents. This position is rooted in the understanding that a house represents more than just property; it embodies stability, security, and hope for a family's future.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines aimed at preventing "bulldozer justice." These guidelines mandate that property owners receive at least 15 days' prior notice before any demolition can proceed. The notice must be delivered via registered post, prominently displayed on the structure, and clearly state the violations and legal grounds for the demolition. Furthermore, all demolitions must be video-recorded, and any violation of these procedures will be treated as contempt of court.
The Supreme Court's intervention came in response to petitions challenging demolition drives across several states, where it was argued that unlawful demolitions were becoming a norm, disproportionately affecting minorities and marginalized communities. Petitioners argued that such demolitions were being used as punitive measures, setting a dangerous precedent. The court also addressed the argument that the growing trend of unlawful demolitions was turning extra-legal punishment into a norm, with minorities and marginalized communities disproportionately targeted. The petitioners contended that such demolitions are being used as punitive measures, setting a dangerous precedent for the public, particularly for vulnerable groups.
The Supreme Court has clarified that its directives do not apply to unauthorized structures in public places, such as roads or footpaths, or to cases where a court has already ordered demolition. However, the court has emphasized that even in these cases, authorities must adhere to due process and act fairly.
The Supreme Court's firm stance against "bulldozer justice" is a crucial step towards protecting the rights of citizens and upholding the rule of law. By setting clear guidelines and holding authorities accountable for their actions, the court is sending a strong message that the executive branch cannot act as judge, jury, and executioner. The judiciary's commitment to due process and fundamental rights is essential for maintaining a just and equitable society.
