Involvement in crime no ground for bulldozer action: SC thrashes govt

The Supreme Court condemned the practice of 'bulldozer justice', stating that it undermines the rule of law. The court emphasized that demolishing property based on alleged criminal activity is unlawful and that involvement in crime does not justify such actions.

This is the second instance this month where the Supreme Court has strongly criticized the destruction of property belonging to those accused of crimes. Earlier, on September 2, the court ruled that even the family homes of convicted individuals should not be demolished, and announced plans to establish guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions nationwide.

The controversial practice began in Uttar Pradesh as a punitive measure against accused individuals and has since been adopted by other states, including Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh.


On Thursday, the court heard a petition from a family in Gujarat whose home was threatened with demolition by municipal authorities. Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and S. V. N. Bhatti strongly disapproved of the practice, asserting that punishing an entire family for the alleged actions of one member is unacceptable. The court emphasized that such actions could be seen as disregarding the laws of the land.

The Supreme Court noted that actions of the State must adhere to the rule of law, and that the alleged criminal activity of one individual cannot result in punitive measures against other family members or their legally constructed property. The court reiterated that criminal accusations must be proven through the proper legal process.

The bench issued a notice to the Gujarat government and ordered a halt to any demolition actions against the property in question. Senior advocate Iqbal Syed, representing the petitioner, provided evidence that the house had been legally constructed with proper permissions from the gram panchayat in 2004. The petition argued that while legal action should be taken against the accused individual, demolishing the family's home is not justified.

The Supreme Court granted interim relief, ordering that the status quo regarding the petitioner’s property be maintained and scheduled further hearings in four weeks.

(with ToI inputs)