Two days. Two courts. Two orders. Two demolitions.
On 1 April, a bench by Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Supreme Court of India In 2021, a Sledaimmer was taken for the demolition of the Authority of Prus Rraj Development of five houses of five houses.
The next day, a division bench of Justice Gadkari and Justice Khata of Bombay High Court ordered the demolition of completely illegal construction in Thane, also ordered action against the municipal officer, stating that the action was being delayed.
Two cases are completely in separate areas; Covering them, and other orders on demolition may be misleading. And yet, under clear chaos, is a common factor for all these cases. It is an intensive disturbing.
Opposite view of demolition
Let’s take the latest cases in turn. The Supreme Court order is not yet available, but has been widely reported and quoted. In 2021, the Prayer Development Authority (PDA) demolished five houses. Was a lawyer. Another to a professor. This demolition was done on 7 March 2021. They, and other affected were actually given notice – on 6 March 2021 exactly one day ago.
Now consider this landscape: You are slapped with a notice that tells you 24 hours that your construction is illegal and is responsible for demolishing. What do you want to do? There is no time to move to get a lawyer, let a court move alone.
The Supreme Court rejected the PDA’s argument that the buildings were illegal, and hence the action was justified. It ordered compensation: Rs 10 lakh to each of the affected persons. The PDA argued that the affected persons were ‘not poor’ and they had other houses, and that ‘should not be compensated for illegality’ (known by news reports).
The PDA’s argument completely remembers the point. The question is not about legitimacy or illegality, but it is about it Process—What action is taken, within what time, and what a reasonable opportunity to show the reason against the proposed action.
Bombay high court The order shows it properly. It was noted that despite many occasions, the person who built could not show the permission of a single valid building. The court ordered the demolition of the entire structure, and the action she found against the officer was delaying the action.
In the PDA case, this is exactly what the Supreme Court said. It has been conducted, a fixed process, the compulsory process by law before demolition can be affected, and 24-hour notice is not corresponding to this procedural criteria.
The Supreme Court found that no attempt was made to give notice from the post personally or registered. There was only one notice on March 1 which was served with a day -long demolition on 6 March. The Supreme Court described the process as both illegal and inhuman, and said that cases shook judicial discretion.
Erosion of law
Two observations should be noted because they lie at the root. The first court observation is that such an action is contrary to the ‘law of law’, which is a basic feature of our Constitution.
The second is the court determination to teach a lesson to the officers and to discourage them from trying to try such tasks at any time.
Bulldozer Justice, as it has come to be known, is a relatively recent acting event, epidemic in its implementation, pustulant under its influence. This, apparently, is also extremely contagious.
Earlier in March, parts of six houses in Bharuch district in Gujarat were demolished by a family of a married woman when she was after living with a divorced man from her village. That month, in Morbi, Gujarat, an alleged illegal part of a house was demolished. It belonged to a person whom the police considered the brother of a bootleyger. The family threatened and attacked the police and even dared to take action.
On November 13, 2024, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Gawai and Justice Vishwanathan ruled the 51 -page landmark, which “Ri: In: in the Matter of Structures”. It took the head-on head-on to Bulldozer Justice Executive Action Quades and considered it completely illegal
It also called the threat to the rule of law, and issued that all incorrectly claimed that there was a blanket ban on all demolitions. It did nothing. It said that its instructions would not apply to the demolition of unauthorized structures in public places or where the court order was.
It issued detailed instructions – and it is noteworthy that these were also necessary – to give adequate notice (from the date of service), the material of the notice and further. A hearing is to be given. There should be an order and an opportunity to challenge it, for which a fortnight time is to be borne. All demolitions are to be videographed.
Justice Bhuyan of the Supreme Court, while speaking at a public event recently, said that bulldozing houses were like bulldozing to the constitution without notice. This is denying, he said, the great concept of rule of law and it is important – the entire judicial distribution system ends.
Just because a person is an accused or convicted does not mean that his house should be demolished. Justice Bhuin commented that ‘Hum’ (by which I mean the courts and our society) have gone wrong, and if the judiciary needs the syllabus improvement, it was required to investigate this.
A justice system in peril
Some are certainly amies, and I believe it is serious. The common Supreme Court for all these cases has repeatedly called the ‘law of law’, for this it is an element of completely disregard.
Worse than this, now there is a very despise for the right to our courts and their orders. And nothing explains the functions of these officers and even private parties. Justice Bhuyan is true to say that it is the time of introspection and revaluation.
The minimum part of the problem is a impatient with the lethargy of our judicial system. The glaciers are melted rapidly, as cases are fixed, run normal thinking, and the results are away from coherent.
There is also a dangerous apathy for the central something to make judicial decisions-the purity of Process Applied and followed. After all, if there is a person, it is said, why should a ‘known’ bootleger, a ‘process’ be done? Certainly there is no procedure, public perception goes, the developer of bootleygers or an illegal structure should be allowed to avoid unheard.
This cheats a basic misconception of the process by which the law is administered. Listen to the Audi Alterum Partem-Second side, or let no party be unheard-the most basic post of any adverse decision-making system is the most basic post.
It demands that the process is individual-unknown; As Justice Bhuan said, it does not matter whether he has been accused or convicted. What does it matter How Decision is taken. It should be appropriate, appropriate and give an opportunity to protect: Bulldozer Justice Instructions In case of fine justice Gavai.
Time for improvement
Among all the businesses we know, the practice of litigation in law courts is only one that always takes into an open, public platform. Lots of businesses have been given in other businesses to achieve the judicial system and have disorganized consumption of its time. Odius comparisons are prepared with medical diagnosis and accounting advice.
But these are not systems that demand hearing of opposing narratives, and I say that if any doctor or accountant finds himself a defendant or accused and the same yardsticks are applied without a decision, then they will be violent remunerations without giving them a hearing – and ‘demand for staying their demand for the postponement.
The law of law, which invites many decisions, has the most recently involved by Justice Oka in the PDA case, which means that no person is above the law; Everyone should bend the knee to law, and the administration of justice demands loyalty for the established process.
Our collective error, one that Justice Bhuyan has indicated is that if we have anything, it is very high in this regard. High -looking phrases do not substitute for targeted action. Any government official who takes perimatory action contrary to the law has ever lost his job or to pay the price personally.
It should change. Perhaps the PDA’s decision is the first and tall overdue step in that direction and, I will venture to add, so the Bombay High Court’s decision is that demands accountability from the officer on charges of implementing court orders.
And perhaps it is also a time that we can do to modernize, simplify and accelerate our existing processes, some of which returned a century. We have ignored them for a very long time. Nothing is found only by converting paper records into digital.
Demand for Swift and righteous justice is not unfair. But this requires introspection, a lot of soul-chefs and then a concrete effort to change so that the in-charge of administering the law can be known that they are never beyond the long arm of law or strong arm of law. A society that ignores the law is a society in decay. Warning signs are all around us. We ignore them in our crisis.
(Justice Gautam Patel is a former Bombay High Court Judge, who is currently a prestigious professor of practice at DM Harish School of Law. This is an opinion. All views are expressed by the author. The Quint Neither endors nor responsible for them.)
