Can Government demolish an Accused Person's House?

This was not an appeal. It was a batch of writ petitions filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32. The petitioners spoke for citizens whose homes and shops had been demolished by state machinery because they were involved as accused in criminal cases. So there was no trial court or High Court ruling to review. The petitioners were attacking the act of sending in the bulldozer as if an accusation were a conviction.

They asked the Court to bar any hasty action against the residential or commercial property of anyone accused in a criminal case. They also wanted strict action against officials who carry out such demolitions. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit saying immovable property can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. On 17 September 2024, the Court ordered that there be no demolition anywhere in the country without its leave. That order excluded unauthorized structures in public places and demolitions ordered by a court.

The Solicitor General defended the demolitions on three grounds. First, the houses were removed for breaching municipal or panchayat laws, not because their owners were accused. Second, if some of those houses belonged to accused persons, that was sheer coincidence. Third, the States themselves maintained that such properties could be demolished only through the procedure prescribed by law.

The petitioners did not buy any of it. They pointed to the short gap between a person being named as an accused and the demolition of his property. They also found it hard to believe that only the accused's building was illegal while every other structure nearby was lawful.

Municipal and panchayat laws let authorities act against illegal construction. The difficulty was telling genuine enforcement from punishment in disguise. The bulldozer sent a message that the person named in a police case was guilty and deserved to lose his home.

The Supreme Court said that crosses a basic constitutional line. An accused is presumed innocent until a court finds him guilty. When the executive demolishes a house without a trial, it takes over the judge's role and inflicts a penalty no court has awarded. The Court also held that the right to shelter is a facet of Article 21. Taking away the home of a spouse, child or parent who has nothing to do with the crime is collective punishment.

To allay citizens' fears of arbitrary power, the Court used Article 142 to issue binding directions. It had already said on 2 September 2024 that it wanted guidelines applicable on a "Pan-India Basis". It collected suggestions from the petitioners' lawyers, the Solicitor General and the amicus before framing them.

The Court's core holding was blunt:

That holding closes three loopholes:

• The executive cannot act as judge. Demolition cannot be used to punish a person for being accused. Even a convicted person's property cannot be demolished without due process.
• Innocent family members cannot be made to pay. If a spouse, children or parents live in or co-own the house, demolishing it because one resident is accused amounts to collective punishment.
• Demolition must be the only option. Before dishousing anyone, the authority must be satisfied that other options, including compounding and demolishing only part of the property, are not available.

The Court also said that when one structure is suddenly picked for demolition while similar structures nearby are untouched, mala fide may loom large. If an occupant was involved in a criminal case shortly before, a presumption can be drawn that the real motive was to penalise the accused. The presumption can be rebutted, but the authorities must satisfy the court that they did not intend to penalise the accused.

The Court then laid down the procedure:

• Notice: No demolition without a prior show-cause notice, returnable within the time in the local municipal law or 15 days from service, whichever is later. It must go by registered post A.D. and be affixed conspicuously on the structure. The Collector/District Magistrate must be told by email, and the notice must state the date and authority for the personal hearing.
• Hearing and order: The designated authority must give a personal hearing and record its minutes. The final order must record the owner's contentions, whether the construction is compoundable, what part is unauthorized, and why demolition is the only option.
• Wait: The order cannot be implemented for 15 days from receipt. The owner may use that time to challenge it or to remove the unauthorized construction.
• Demolition day: The demolition must be video-graphed. A report listing the police and civil personnel involved must go to the Municipal Commissioner and be displayed on the digital portal.

• Gather your papers first. Collect proof of ownership and regularity, such as the registered sale deed or title deed, property tax receipts, building plan approval and photographs of the structure. Keep the show-cause notice, the hearing minutes and any demolition order. The notice itself must list the documents you are required to furnish with your reply, so read that list carefully.
• Respond through the designated authority. File your reply to the show-cause notice and attend the personal hearing on the date fixed. Specifically ask whether the unauthorized construction can be compounded, or whether only part of it must go. Also check that the notice was sent by registered post A.D. and affixed on the structure. The Court ordered the Collector/District Magistrate's office to be told by email as soon as the notice is served, to prevent any allegation of backdating.
• Challenge the order within the window. After a demolition order, the authority cannot act for 15 days from receipt, even if the statute gives no appeal. The Court said the affected person must get time to challenge the order before an appropriate forum. Check the digital portal for the order.
• Understand where the protection ends. The judgment gives the owner or occupier an opportunity to remove or demolish the unauthorized construction within 15 days. It then says: "Only after the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice has expired and the owner/occupier has not removed/demolished the unauthorized construction, and if the same is not stayed by any appellate authority or a court, the concerned authority shall take steps to demolish the same." Separately, the final order itself is not to be implemented for 15 days from the date of its receipt. A stay from an appellate authority or a court is what stops the authority from proceeding.