2024 (11) TMI 1414 - SC - Indian Laws

Property demolition without due process violates constitutional rights and presumption of innocence principles

In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures

The SC held that demolishing properties of accused individuals without due process violates rule of law, separation of powers, and constitutional rights. ... Demolition of properties of individuals accused of crimes without following the due process of law - Rule of law - doctrine of separation of powers - Doctrine of public trust and public accountability - Presumption of innocence and natural justice - Right to shelter - Permissibility of the collective punishment. Rule of law - HELD THAT:- The law must be just and fair, and also protect the human rights and dignity of all members of society. At the same time, the essential purpose of the Rule of law is to prevent the abuse of power. The Rule of law is an umbrella concept to protect citizens against the power of the State. It is integral to and necessary for democracy and good governance - the concept of Rule of law needs to be considered broadly. The legal sanctity of practices in the past such as slavery in the United States, apartheid in South Africa, or untouchability in India would have to be considered as antitheses to the Rule of law apart from being a serious affront to human dignity. The Rule of law has been described as a safeguard against the arbitrary use of the State power. It ensures that the actions of the Government and its authorities are governed by established legal principles, rather than arbitrary discretion. Whenever the citizens in the form of mobs have broken the law to vandalize or to declare threats, the Court has cast an obligation on the State to prevent such threats or assaults. This obligation underscores the State's responsibility to maintain law and order and protect citizens from unlawful actions that undermine the Rule of law itself. The Rule of law provides a framework and value system to 'rein in the arbitrary exercise of state power and to prevent the abuse of power, to ensure predictability and stability, to make sure that individuals know that their lives, their liberty, their property will not be taken away from them arbitrarily and abusively'. Separation of powers - HELD THAT:- This Court can issue a direction to the executive and also formulate guidelines for facilitation and in furtherance of fundamental rights and sometimes for the actualization and fructification of statutory rights. The question arises as to whether when the adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary, can the officers of the State Government take upon themselves the adjudicatory function and without a person undergoing a trial be inflicted with a punishment of demolition of his properties. In our view, such a situation would be wholly impermissible in our constitutional set up. The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions. Doctrine of public trust and public accountability - HELD THAT:- If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes the houses of citizens only on the ground that they are Accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of 'rule of law'. If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an Accused, it violates the principle of 'separation of powers'. In such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions - certain binding directives need to be formulated. This will ensure that public officials do not act in a high-handed, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. Further, if they indulge in such acts, accountability must be fastened upon them. Rights of the accused under the Constitution - HELD THAT:- Firstly, even the Accused or the convicts have certain rights and safeguards in the form of constitutional provisions and criminal law. Secondly, the State and its officials cannot take arbitrary and excessive measures against the Accused or for that matter even against the convicts without following the due process as sanctioned by law. The third principle that would emerge is that when the right of an Accused or a convict is violated on account of illegal or arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its officials or on account of their negligence, inaction, or arbitrary action, there has to be an institutional accountability. One of the measures for redressing the grievance for violation of a right would be to grant compensation. At the same time, if any of the officers of the State has abused his powers or acted in a totally arbitrary or mala fide manner, he cannot be spared for such an illegal, arbitrary, mala fide exercise of power. Presumption of innocence and natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Rule of law, the rights of the citizens guaranteed under the Constitution, and the principles of natural justice would be essential requirements. If a citizen's house is demolished merely because he is an Accused or even for that matter a convict, that too without following the due process as prescribed by law, in our considered view, it will be totally unconstitutional for more than one reason. Firstly, the executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an Accused person without following the due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of Rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person Accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits. It is to be noted that even in the cases consisting of imposition of a death sentence, it is always a discretion available to the courts as to whether to award such an extreme punishment or not. There is even an institutional safeguard in the cases of such punishment to the effect that the decision of the trial court inflicting death penalty cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. Even in the cases of convicts for the commission of most extreme and heinous offences, the punishment cannot be imposed without following the mandatory requirements under the statute. In that light, can it be said that a person who is only Accused of committing some crime or even convicted can be inflicted the punishment of demolition of his property/properties? The answer is an emphatic 'No'. Right to shelter - HELD THAT:- The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the persons are to be dishoused, then for taking such steps the concerned authorities must satisfy themselves that such an extreme step of demolition is only available and other options including compounding and demolition of only part of the house property are not available. Permissibility of the collective punishment - HELD THAT:- Right to life is a fundamental right. As already discussed herein above, with the expanded scope of law, the right to shelter has also been considered as one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. In one structure, various people or maybe even a few families could reside. The question that is required to be considered is, as to whether if only one of the residents of such a structure is an Accused or convicted in a crime, could the authorities be permitted to demolish the entire structure thereby removing the shelter from the heads of the persons who are not directly or indirectly related with the commission of crime. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as recognized in our country that a person is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty. If demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an Accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure. The constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same. Conclusion - i) No demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days' time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. ii) The designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned. iii) An opportunity should be given to the owner/occupier to remove the unauthorized construction or demolish the same within a period of 15 days. Application disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe Supreme Court of India considered several core legal questions in this judgment:Whether the properties of individuals accused of crimes can be demolished without following due process of law.The applicability of the Rule of law, separation of powers, and public trust doctrine in the context of executive actions such as demolitions.The rights of the accused under the Constitution, including the presumption of innocence and principles of natural justice.The right to shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.The permissibility of collective punishment through demolition of properties.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Rule of Law and Due ProcessLegal Framework and Precedents: The court emphasized the Rule of law as a fundamental principle of democratic governance, requiring that no person be punished without a distinct breach of law established through due legal process.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reiterated that the executive cannot act as a judge and execute punitive measures such as demolitions without judicial oversight.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found instances where demolitions were carried out without due process, raising concerns about arbitrary state action.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the Rule of law to emphasize that demolitions must follow legal procedures and cannot be based solely on accusations.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The state argued that demolitions were based on municipal law violations, but the court found this insufficient to bypass due process protections.Conclusions: The court concluded that demolitions without due process violate the Rule of law and are unconstitutional.Issue 2: Separation of PowersLegal Framework and Precedents: The doctrine of separation of powers mandates distinct roles for the executive, legislature, and judiciary.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that the executive cannot usurp judicial functions by adjudicating guilt and imposing penalties like demolitions.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted instances where the executive acted beyond its authority, violating the separation of powers.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied this doctrine to restrict the executive from acting as a judicial body.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The state's argument of acting under municipal laws was rejected as insufficient to justify bypassing judicial processes.Conclusions: The court held that the executive's actions violated the separation of powers, necessitating judicial intervention.Issue 3: Rights of the AccusedLegal Framework and Precedents: The rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, are protected under the Constitution.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court underscored that the accused retain fundamental rights, and punitive actions like demolitions without trial violate these rights.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that demolitions were often linked to accusations, bypassing the presumption of innocence.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied constitutional protections to prevent arbitrary demolitions based on mere accusations.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The state's defense of municipal law enforcement was insufficient to override constitutional rights.Conclusions: The court concluded that demolishing properties of the accused without due process violates constitutional rights.Issue 4: Right to ShelterLegal Framework and Precedents: The right to shelter is recognized as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized that demolitions infringe on the fundamental right to shelter, affecting not just the accused but their families.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that demolitions often affected families unrelated to the accused's alleged crimes.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the right to shelter to prevent arbitrary demolitions impacting innocent family members.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The state's argument of legal violations was insufficient to justify infringing on the right to shelter.Conclusions: The court held that demolitions violating the right to shelter are unconstitutional.Issue 5: Collective PunishmentLegal Framework and Precedents: Collective punishment is contrary to principles of justice and individual accountability.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court rejected the notion of collective punishment, emphasizing individual culpability.Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that demolitions often punished entire families for the alleged crimes of one member.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied principles of individual accountability to prevent collective punishment through demolitions.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The state's justification of municipal law enforcement was insufficient to justify collective punishment.Conclusions: The court concluded that demolitions as collective punishment are unconstitutional.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles Established:The Rule of law mandates that demolitions must follow due process and cannot be based solely on accusations.The separation of powers prohibits the executive from acting as a judge and executing punitive measures like demolitions.The rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence, must be upheld, and demolitions without trial violate these rights.The right to shelter is a fundamental right, and demolitions infringing this right are unconstitutional.Collective punishment through demolitions is contrary to principles of justice and individual accountability.Final Determinations on Each Issue:Demolitions without due process violate the Rule of law and are unconstitutional.The executive's actions in demolishing properties without judicial oversight violate the separation of powers.Demolitions based on accusations violate the constitutional rights of the accused.Demolitions infringing on the right to shelter are unconstitutional.Collective punishment through demolitions is unconstitutional.Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning:'The Rule of law is the cornerstone of modern democratic societies and protects the foundational values of a democracy.''The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions.''The right to live with dignity extends even to the incarcerated.''Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities.''We have rejected, as a nation, the theory of community guilt and collective punishment and instead that no man shall be punished except for his own guilt.'