IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES versus

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 13-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Directions issued

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 24 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 722 : 2024 INSC 866
In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures 
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022
13 November 2024
[B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the executive should be permitted to take away the 
shelter of a family or families as a measure for infliction of 
penalty on a person who is accused in a crime. In other words, 
whether properties of persons, who are accused of committing 
certain crimes or for that matter even convicted for commission 
of criminal offences, can be demolished without following the due 
process of law.
Headnotes†
Demolition of property – Demolition of property of a person 
by the State machinery merely because he is an accused or 
a convict, that too without following due process prescribed 
by law, is totally unconstitutional:
Held: 1. 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 – For the executive to act in a transparent 
manner so as to avoid the vice of arbitrariness, 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. [Paras 53, 54]
2. 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, it will be totally 
unconstitutional for more than one reason – Firstly, the executive 
* Author
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
723
In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures 
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. [Para 71]
3.1. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when 
authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural 
justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due 
process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where “might 
was right” – In our Constitution, which rests on the foundation of 
‘the rule of law’, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no 
place – Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to 
be dealt with the heavy hand of the law – Our constitutional ethos 
and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such 
misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law – Such an 
action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted 
of an offence – Even in the case of such a person the property/
properties cannot be demolished without following the due process 
as prescribed by law – Such an action by the executive would 
be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of 
law – The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the 
law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of 
law. [Paras 72, 73, 74]
3.2. 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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.