'Bulldozer Justice' Condemned: Supreme Court Slams Illegal Demolitions Violating Right to Shelter

Supreme Court Decries "Bulldozer Justice," Orders Compensation for Illegal Demolitions in Uttar Pradesh

New Delhi – In a scathing judgment, the Supreme Court of India has condemned the "high-handed and illegal" demolition of residential buildings by the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) in Uttar Pradesh, terming it a case of "bulldozer justice." The bench, presided over by Justice Abhay S.Oka , expressed shock and asserted that the actions of the PDA were in blatant violation of the rule of law and the fundamental right to shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Summary Demolition Under Scrutiny

The case before the Supreme Court concerned appeals against an order of the Allahabad High Court, which had seemingly upheld the demolition action. The PDA had invoked Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, to justify the demolitions, claiming unauthorized construction. However, the Supreme Court found severe procedural lapses and a complete disregard for the principles of natural justice in the PDA's actions.

Flawed Notice and Hasty Demolition

The court meticulously examined the process followed by the PDA, highlighting the inadequacy of the show-cause notice issued under Section 27 of the 1973 Act. The PDA claimed to have affixed the notice on the appellants' structures on December 18, 2020, and similarly, the demolition order dated January 8, 2021. The court observed that no genuine attempts were made for personal service of these crucial notices. While a communication dated March 1, 2021, was sent via registered post and served on March 6, 2021, the demolition was carried out the very next day, a Sunday, leaving the residents no time to appeal.

Justice Oka emphasized the interpretation of Section 43 of the 1973 Act, which outlines the modes of service. The court clarified that affixation of notice should only be a last resort, employed after "genuine multiple efforts" to personally serve the notice have failed. The judgment underscored:

“The words are not “if such a person is not found”. It is clear that only after genuine multiple efforts are made to find the person on more than one day, one can say that “the person cannot be found”. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the address and affixes it after finding that on that day, the person concerned is unavailable at a given time.”

The court further noted that even after proper service, at least 15 days must be granted to allow for an appeal under Section 27(2) of the 1973 Act, a crucial right completely denied to the appellants in this case.

"Right to Shelter" and "Rule of Law" Paramount

The Supreme Court firmly reiterated that the "right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India" and can only be taken away through due process of law. The court minced no words in condemning the PDA's approach, stating:

“The residential structures of citizens cannot be demolished in such a summary manner without following the principles of natural justice… This is one more case of bulldozer justice. The officers of the PDA have forgotten that the rule of law prevails in our country.”

Relief and Directions

Finding the demolition action "completely illegal and arbitrary," the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court's order and directed the PDA to pay costs of ₹10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) in each case to the appellants within six weeks. Failure to do so will attract an interest of 6% per annum.

Moreover, the court directed the PDA to "scrupulously follow" the guidelines laid down in the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures , ensuring due process is followed in all future demolition actions. The appellants were also granted the liberty to initiate separate proceedings to establish their land rights and claim compensation for the illegal demolition.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to development authorities across the country that the rule of law and fundamental rights cannot be bulldozed in the name of development and that due process is non-negotiable, especially when it concerns the basic human right to shelter.