Punitive demolition barred without due process, as the Court requires notice, hearing, proportionality, and lawful authority before action.

The Supreme Court states that property demolition cannot be used as punishment for an accused or convict outside established legal process. Even where a structure is alleged to be unauthorized, the executive must act only under governing law and after fair notice, hearing, and a reasoned decision. The judgment further holds that demolishing premises occupied by family members or other unconnected persons may amount to collective and disproportionate punishment, contrary to Article 21, the presumption of innocence, and the rule of law. It also sets binding safeguards on notice, procedure, documentation, and accountability before any demolition action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the executive can demolish residential or commercial property of an accused or convict without following due process of law. (ii) Whether such demolition, especially when it affects family members or similarly situated occupants, amounts to punitive, arbitrary, or collective punishment contrary to constitutional guarantees.

Issue (i): Whether the executive can demolish residential or commercial property of an accused or convict without following due process of law.

Analysis: The judgment holds that demolition of property cannot be used as a penalty merely because a person has been accused of, or convicted for, an offence. Such action would permit the executive to assume an adjudicatory role reserved for courts, offend the rule of law, and violate the principles of natural justice and due process. The Court further emphasizes that even where a structure is alleged to be unauthorized, the action must conform to the governing legal procedure and must not be taken arbitrarily or in a high-handed manner.

Conclusion: The executive cannot demolish property of an accused or convict as a measure of punishment without following due process; such action is impermissible.

Issue (ii): Whether such demolition, especially when it affects family members or similarly situated occupants, amounts to punitive, arbitrary, or collective punishment contrary to constitutional guarantees.

Analysis: The judgment holds that demolishing a home or commercial premises occupied by multiple persons, including family members unconnected with the alleged offence, would amount to collective punishment. The Court links this to the right to shelter under Article 21, the presumption of innocence, and the proportionality requirement. It states that the extreme step of demolition may be taken only when lesser measures such as compounding or partial removal are unavailable, and only after fair notice, hearing, and reasoned determination. The Court also issues binding directions regulating notice, hearing, final orders, demolition procedure, documentation, and accountability.

Conclusion: Such demolition is unconstitutional if it operates as collective or disproportionate punishment, and strict procedural safeguards are mandatory.

Final Conclusion: The judgment lays down pan-India safeguards against arbitrary demolition, prohibits punitive demolition linked to criminal /implication, and requires compliance with notice, hearing, proportionality, and accountability norms before any demolition action.

Ratio Decidendi: The State cannot punish an accused or convict by demolishing property outside the established legal process; demolition is valid only when authorized by law, preceded by fair procedure, and limited to the lawful extent necessary.

---