Holding

Demolition of property of an accused or convict without adherence to due‑process requirements is unconstitutional as it violates the rule of law, separation of powers, and the right to shelter under Article 21.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions challenging the demolition of residential and commercial structures belonging to persons accused or convicted of crimes, where the demolitions were carried out without following any due‑process requirements. The Court examined whether the executive could impose such a penalty, invoking the principles of rule of law, separation of powers, the right to shelter under Article 21, the presumption of innocence and the prohibition on collective punishment. It held that demolishing property on the basis of accusation or conviction, without a fair hearing and the procedural safeguards prescribed by law, is unconstitutional and amounts to an arbitrary exercise of executive power. The Court further emphasized that any demolition must be the last resort, proportionate, and subject to a show‑cause notice, personal hearing, and an opportunity for appellate review. Accordingly, the Court issued detailed directions under Article 142 to regulate demolition proceedings, mandated accountability of officials, and barred demolition of structures of accused or convicts unless all procedural safeguards are satisfied.

Issues considered

Whether the executive may demolish the property of an accused or convicted person as a punitive measure without following due process of law.
Whether such demolition violates the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers.
Whether demolition of a house of an accused or convict infringes the right to shelter and life guaranteed under Article 21.
Whether demolishing a structure where innocent family members reside amounts to unlawful collective punishment.
What procedural safeguards (notice, hearing, proportionality, appellate review) are required before demolition can be ordered.
How accountability of public officials for arbitrary demolition should be enforced.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India

Headnote

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 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

Subjects

Demolition of property of accused / convictRule of lawSeparation of powersPublic officialsDue process prescribed by lawUnconstitutionalBulldozer demolishing a buildingRight to shelterRight to lifePresumptionSocio-economic rightsCollective punishmentDirectionsArbitrary exercise of powerNoticePersonal hearingAppellate and judicial scrutinyProceedings of demolitionDemocratic governanceAbuse of powerDoctrine of Public Trust and Public AccountabilityRights of accusedProtection from arbitrary State actionInstitutional accountabilityFairness in criminal justice systemPresumption of innocenceNatural justiceFair trial

Judgment

[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
punishment of demolition of his property/properties? The answer
is an emphatic ‘No’. [Para 75]
724 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4. There is another angle to this problem – It is not only the
accused who lives in such property or owns such property – If
his spouse, children, parents live in the same house or co-own
the same property, can they be penalized by demolishing the
property without them even being involved in any crime only on
the basis of them being related to an alleged accused person?
What is their mistake if their relative is arrayed as an accused in
some complaint or F.I.R.? As is well known, a pious father may
have a recalcitrant son and vice versa – Punishing such persons
who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house
where they live in or properties owned by them is nothing but
an anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life
guaranteed under the Constitution – The right to shelter is one of
the facets of Article 21 – Depriving such innocent people of their
right to life by removing shelter from their heads, would be wholly
unconstitutional. [Paras 76, 78]
5. Though in some cases it may be by sheer coincidence that the
properties which were in breach of local municipal laws governing
them also happen to belong to the accused persons, however,
when a particular structure is chosen all of a sudden for demolition
and the rest of the similarly situated structures in the same vicinity
are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large – In such
cases, where the authorities indulge into arbitrary pick and choose
of the structures and it is established that soon before initiation
of such an action an occupant of the structure was found to be
involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that
the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal
structure but an action of penalizing the accused without even
trying him before the court of law – No doubt, such a presumption
could be rebuttable, however, the authorities will have to satisfy
the court that it did not intend to penalize a person accused by
demolishing the structure. [Para 82]

Demolition of property – Must be the only option available –
Right to shelter – A facet of Art.21 of the Constitution:
Held: If the persons are to be dishoused, then for taking such
steps the concerned authorities must satisfy themselves that such
an extreme step of demolition is only available and other options
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 725

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

including compounding and demolition of only part of the house
property are not available – Also, construction of a house has
an aspect of socio-economic rights – For an average citizen, the
construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard
work, dreams, and aspirations – A house is not just a property
but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for
stability, security, and a future – Having a house or a roof over
one’s head gives satisfaction to any person – It gives a sense
of dignity and a sense of belonging – If this is to be taken away,
then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option
available. [Paras 84, 86]

Demolition of property – Collective punishment, if permissible:
Held: If demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of
persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground
that one person residing in such a house is either an accused
or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective
punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such
structure – Our constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence
would never permit the same. [Para 88]

Constitution of India – Art.142 – Demolition of properties of
persons accused of criminal offences – Directions issued
to allay fears with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by
officers / officials of the State:
Held: 1. Even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected
party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order
of demolition before an appropriate forum – Further, even in
cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order,
sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange
their affairs. [Para 90]
2.1. It is necessary to issue the following directions in exercise
of power under Article 142 of the Constitution – These directions
however will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure
in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting
railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases
where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.
[Paras 90, 91]
726 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2.2. Notice: No demolition should be carried out without a prior
show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time
provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from
the date of service of such notice, whichever is later – As soon
as the show cause notice is duly served, intimation thereof shall
be sent to the office of Collector/District Magistrate of the district
digitally by email and an auto generated reply acknowledging
receipt of the mail should also be issued from the office of the
Collector/District Magistrate – The Collector/DM shall designate a
nodal officer and also assign an email address and communicate
the same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge of
building regulations and demolition within one month – The notice
should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed
and the designated authority before whom the hearing will take
place – Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated
digital portal, within 3 months wherein details regarding service/
pasting of the notice, the reply, the show cause notice and the
order passed thereon would be available.
2.3. Personal hearing: The designated authority shall give an
opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned – The
minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded.
2.4. Final Order: Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass
a final order – The final order shall contain: a. the contentions of
the noticee, and if the designated authority disagrees with the
same, the reasons thereof; b. as to whether the unauthorized
construction is compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor;
c. if the designated authority finds that only part of the construction
is unauthorized / non-compoundable, then the details thereof –
d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only option
available and other options like compounding and demolishing
only part of the property are not available.
2.5. Opportunity of appellate and judicial scrutiny of the final
order: If the statute provides for an appellate opportunity and
time for filing the same, or even if it does not so, the order will
not be implemented for a period of 15 days from the date of
receipt thereof – The order shall also be displayed on the digital
portal – An opportunity should be given to the owner/occupier to
remove the unauthorized construction or demolish the same within
a period of 15 days.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 727

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

2.6. Proceedings of demolition: The proceedings of demolition shall
be video-graphed, and the concerned authority shall prepare a
demolition report giving the list of police officials and civil personnel
that participated in the demolition process – Video recording to be
duly preserved – The said demolition report should be forwarded to
the Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also be displayed
on the digital portal. [Para 91]
3. The authorities hereinafter shall strictly comply with the aforesaid
directions – Violation of any of the directions would lead to initiation
of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution – If the
demolition is found to be in violation of the orders of this Court,
the officer/officers concerned will be held responsible for restitution
of the demolished property at his/their personal cost in addition to
payment of damages. [Paras 92, 93, 94]

Rule of law – Relevance of – Very foundation of democratic
governance – Essential purpose of the rule of law is to prevent
the abuse of power:
Held: The law must be just and fair, and also protect the human
rights and dignity of all members of society – At the same time,
the essential purpose of the rule of law is to prevent the abuse of
power – The rule of law is an umbrella concept to protect citizens
against the power of the State – It is integral to and necessary
for democracy and good governance – The processes enshrined
in constitutional law, criminal law and procedure are facets of the
rule of law and thus serve to regulate the exercise of executive
power. [Paras 19, 30, 33]

Doctrines / Principles – Doctrine of separation of powers, as
envisaged in our Constitution:
Held: Executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core
functions. [Para 44]

Doctrines/Principles – Doctrine of Public Trust and Public
Accountability:
Held: Executive exercises its powers as a ‘trustee’ of the citizens
and therefore, executive actions must be consistent with maintaining
public trust – When executive acts in breach of principles of ‘rule
728 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of law’ and ‘separation of powers’, doctrine of public trust and
accountability would come into play. [Paras 45, 46]

Rights of accused – Protection from arbitrary State action –
Institutional accountability:
Held: The State and its officials cannot take arbitrary and excessive
measures against the accused or for that matter even against the
convicts without following the due process as sanctioned by law –
When the right of an accused or a convict is violated on account of
illegal or arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its officials or
on account of their negligence, inaction, or arbitrary action, there
has to be an institutional accountability – One of the measures
for redressing the grievance for violation of a right would be to
grant compensation – At the same time, if any of the officers of
the State has abused his powers or acted in a totally arbitrary or
malafide manner, he cannot be spared for such an illegal, arbitrary,
malafide exercise of power. [Para 62]

Criminal Law – Fairness in criminal justice system –
Presumption of innocence and natural justice:
Held: The principle, that the criminal justice process is also to
be in accordance with the principle of the rule of law, is very well
enshrined in the Constitution – The principle, that “an accused is
not guilty unless proven so in a court of law” is foundational to
any legal system – It reflects the presumption of innocence, which
means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law –
This principle ensures that individuals are not unfairly punished or
stigmatized based solely on accusations or suspicions – The right
to a fair trial is essential in upholding the rule of law and protecting
individual liberties – It ensures that the principles of natural justice
and fair process are being strictly followed – An accused cannot be
declared guilty, unless proven so beyond reasonable doubt before
a court of law – They cannot be declared guilty, unless there is a
fair trial. [Paras 63, 64, 66]

Case Law Cited
Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain [1976] 2 SCR 347 :
(1975) 2 SCC 159; National Human Rights Commission v. State
of Arunachal Pradesh and Another, 1996 INSC 38 : [1996] 1
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 729

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

SCR 278 : (1996) 1 SCC 742; Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.)
& Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. [2018] 8 SCR 1 : (2019) 1 SCC 1
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. [2019] 16 SCR 1
: (2020) 6 SCC 1; Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India & Others
[2024] 1 SCR 743 : (2024) 5 SCC 481; Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya
Kapur and others v. State of Punjab [1955] 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955
SC 549; I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of T.N. [2007] 1 SCR
706 : (2007) 2 SCC 1; State of U.P. and others v. Jeet S. Bisht and
another [2007] 7 SCR 705 : (2007) 6 SCC 586; Kalpana Mehta
and Others v. Union of India and Others [2018] 4 SCR 1 : (2018)
7 SCC 1; Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and Another v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [2011] 12 SCR 191 : (2011)
9 SCC 354; Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Another v.
Union of India and another [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 746 : (2005) 8
SCC 202; Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and Others v. Union of
India and Others [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382 : (1986) 1 SCC 133;
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Others [1993] 2 SCR 581 :
(1993) 2 SCC 746; Common Cause, a registered society v. Union
of India and Others [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667; Sunil
Batra (I) v. Delhi Administration and Others [1979] 1 SCR 392 :
(1978) 4 SCC 494; Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar,
New Delhi [1979] 1 SCR 512 : (1978) 4 SCC 104; Sunil Batra
(II) v. Delhi Administration [1980] 2 SCR 557 : (1980) 3 SCC 488;
Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 INSC 753 : [2024]
10 SCR 493; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Another, 1983 INSC
85 : [1983] 3 SCR 508; Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State
of Maharashtra, 2019 INSC 305 : [2019] 4 SCR 709; Himanshu
Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [2008] 4
SCR 783 : AIR 2008 SC 1943; State of Maharashtra v. Champalal
Punjaji Shah [1982] 1 SCR 299; Chameli Singh and Others v. State
of U.P. and Another [1995] Supp. 6 SCR 827 : (1996) 2 SCC 549;
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State
of Madhya Pradesh and Others [2016] 3 SCR 575 : (2016) 7 SCC
353; K.S. Puttaswamy and Another v. Union of India and Others
[2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1; Vivek Narayan Sharma
and Others v. Union of India and Others [2023] 1 SCR 1 : (2023)
3 SCC 1; (Demonetization Case-5J); Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and
Others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Others [1980]
2 SCR 146 : (1980) 2 SCC 593 – referred to.
Southam v. Smout (1964) 1 QB 308 and John v Rees (1970)
Ch 345 – referred to.
730 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Books and Periodicals Cited
AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution,
Macmilan and Co. Ltd. (1952), pp. 183-205; Tamanaha, Brian Z.
“The history and elements of the rule of law.” Singapore Journal of
Legal Studies (2012) : 232-247; Fallon Jr, Richard H. “The rule of law
as a concept in constitutional discourse.” Colum. L. Rev. 97 (1997):
1; Stein, Robert. “Rule of law: what does it mean.” Minn. J. Int’l
L. 18 (2009): 293; Raitio, Juha. “The Concept of the Rule of Law-
Just a Political Ideal, or a Binding Principle?.” Giornale di Storia
Costituzionale, 45, 2023, pp. 37-46. HeinOnline; Bingham, Tom.
The Rule of Law, p.60; Bedner, Adriaan. “An elementary approach
to the rule of law.” Hague Journal on the rule of law 2.1 (2010) :
48-74; Peerenboom, Randall. “Human rights and rule of law :
What’s the relationship.” Geo. J. Int’l L. 36 (2004) : 809; Rosenfeld,
Michel. “The rule of law and the legitimacy of constitutional
democracy.” S. Cal. L. Rev. 74 (2000): 1307; John Rawls, Samuel
Freeman (ed.), Collected Papers (Harvard University Press,
2021); John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) (The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999); and
Arthur H. Garrison, “The Rule of Law and the Rise of Control of
Executive Power”, 18(2) Texas Review of Law & Politics 303-355
(2014) – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Demolition of property of accused / convict; Rule of law; Separation
of powers; Public officials; Due process prescribed by law;
Unconstitutional; Bulldozer demolishing a building; Right to shelter;
Right to life; Presumption; Socio-economic rights; Collective
punishment; Directions; Arbitrary exercise of power; Notice;
Personal hearing; Appellate and judicial scrutiny; Proceedings of
demolition; Democratic governance; Abuse of power; Doctrine of
Public Trust and Public Accountability; Rights of accused; Protection
from arbitrary State action; Institutional accountability; Fairness in
criminal justice system; Presumption of innocence; Natural justice;
Fair trial.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 731

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

Case Arising From
CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 295 of 2022
(Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India)
With
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 162 of 2022 And Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 328 of 2022

Appearances for Parties
Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv./Amicus Curiae.
M. R. Shamshad, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gaurav Agarwal, Sanjay
Hegde, Sr. Advs., Ms. Karishma Rajput, Alabhya Dhamija, Farrukh
Rasheed, Arijit Sarkar, Ms. Zeb Hasan, Sarim Naved, Daniyal Khan,
Uday Bhatia, Shahid Nadeem, Aarif Ali, Mujahid Ahmed, Wasif
Rehman Khan, Ms. Sugandha Anand, Anas Tanwari, Ebad Ur.
Rahman, Ankit Tiwari, Ms. Anusha Soni, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Ms. Garima
Prashad, Sr. A.A.G., Bharat Singh, D.S. Parmar, Shiv Mangal
Sharma, A.A.Gs., Saurabh Mishra, Sanjiv Sen, C.U. Singh,
Salman Khurshid, Sr. Advs., Kanu Agarwal, Rajat Nair, Sanjay
Kumar Tyagi, Amit Sharma B, Mayank Pandey, Varun Chugh,
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Ms. Shagun Parashar,
Sharanya Sinha, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, A D N Rao, Ms. Ankita
Choudhary Rathi, Vinayak Sharma, Shiv Mangal Sharma, Sarad
Kumar Singhania, Abhimanyu Singh Ga, Ms. Rashmi Singhania,
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Praveen Swarup, Ameet Siingh, Devesh
Maurya, Sukhamrit Singh, Amogh Bansal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms.
Fauzia Shakil, M. Huzaifa, Ujjwal Singh, Tasmiya Taleha, Ms. Bidya
Mohanty, Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Ms. Katyayani Suhrud, Nizam
Pasha, Ms. Rashmi Singh, Ms. Astwika Das, Ms. Pinky Behera,
Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., Aslam Ahmed Jamal, Ms. Shabiesta Nabi,
Raees Ahmad, Mohd Ashaab, Abhishek Dwivedi, Zeeshan Haider,
Satyapal Singh, Arun Kumar Arunachal, Rakesh Dahiya, Aditya
Dahiya, R.N. Mahlawat, Vikram Gulia, Rishabh Sharma, Prashant
Bhushan, Anurag Tiwary, Ms. Cheryl D'Souza, Ms. Vrinda Grover,
Soutik Banerjee, Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Aakarsh Kamra, Aftab Ali
Khan, S. Shahid Hussain Rizvi, Ms. Azra Rehman, Brahmjeet
Singh, Abdul Karim Ansari, Ms. Sipra Khan, Mrs. Latika Chouhan,
Ali Safeer Farooqi, Advs. for the Respondent.
732 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

B.R. Gavai, J.
INDEX*

I. BACKGROUND Paras 1 to 13
II. RULE OF LAW Paras 14 to 33
III SEPARATION OF POWERS Paras 34 to 44
IV. DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST AND Paras 45 to 54
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
V. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER THE Paras 55 to 62
CONSTITUTION
VI. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW: Paras 63 to 75
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND
NATURAL JUSTICE
VII. RIGHT TO SHELTER Paras 76 to 86
VIII. PERMISSIBILITY OF THE COLLECTIVE Para 87 to 89
PUNISHMENT
IX. DIRECTIONS Paras 90 to 99

(To have one’s own home, one’s own courtyard – this dream lives
in every heart. It’s a longing that never fades, to never lose the
dream of a home.)
This is how the importance of shelter has been described by a
famous Hindi poet ‘Pradeep’.
It is a dream of every person, every family to have a shelter above
their heads. A house is an embodiment of the collective hopes of a
family or individuals’ stability and security.
An important question as to whether the executive should be permitted
to take away the shelter of a family or families as a measure for

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 733

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

infliction of penalty on a person who is accused in a crime under
our constitutional scheme or not arises for consideration.
Before we proceed with our judgment, we may gainfully refer to the
following observation of Lord Denning in the case of Southam v.
Smout1:
“‘The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the
forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake –
the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the
rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter –
all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined
tenement.’ So be it – unless he has justification by law.”

I. BACKGROUND
1. This batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India seeks to raise the grievance on behalf of various citizens
whose residential and commercial properties have been demolished
by the state machinery, without following the due process of law, on
the ground of them being involved as an accused in criminal offences.
2. The petitions inter alia seek a direction to the Union of India and the
concerned States directing them that no precipitative action be taken
in respect of residential or commercial properties of any accused in
any criminal proceedings.
3. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued for strict action
to be taken against the officials of the state machinery who have
participated or participate in future in such an illegal exercise of
demolition.
4. We have heard the matter from time to time.
5. When the matter was listed on 2nd September 2024, this Court
passed the following order:
“UPON hearing the counsel the Court
made the following
ORDER
1. IA. Nos.194520, 195057, 194619, 188144 and
186082 of 2024 are allowed.

1 (1964) 1 QB 308 at 320
734 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2. The present batch of petitions raise a grievance that
the properties of persons who are accused of some
crime are being demolished.
3. The position is disputed by the State of Uttar Pradesh
and an affidavit has been filed that the immovable
properties can be demolished only in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by law. An affidavit
has also been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar
Pradesh by Special Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh.
4. We appreciate the stand taken by the State of Uttar
Pradesh in the affidavit filed by it.
5. We propose to lay down certain guidelines on ‘Pan-
India Basis’ so that the concerns with regard to the
issues raised are taken care of.
6. We find that it will be appropriate that the learned
counsel for the parties give their suggestions so that
the Court can frame appropriate guidelines, which
will be applicable on ‘Pan-India Basis’.
7. We request all the parties to also supply a copy of
their suggestions to Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned
Additional Advocate General for the State of
Madhya Pradesh, on his Email ID which is sr.adv.
nachiketajoshi@gmail.com, who is requested to
collate the same.
8. List on 17.09.2024.”
6. Vide order dated 17th September 2024, we directed that, “there shall
be no demolition anywhere across the country without seeking leave
of this Court”. However, we clarified that, “our order would not be
applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place
such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river
body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for
demolition made by a Court of law”.
7. Thereafter, we heard the matter at length on 1st October 2024.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 735

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

8. We have heard Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shri M.R. Shamshad,
Shri Sanjay Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners, Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India
(“SG” for short), appearing for the Union of India as well as for some
of the States, Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel and Shri
C.U. Singh, Smt. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel and
Shri Mohd. Nizammudin Pasha, Smt. Fauzia Shakil and Smt. Rashmi
Singh, learned counsel appearing for their respective applicant(s)
seeking intervention/impleadment.
9. In pursuance to our order dated 2nd September 2024, various learned
counsel had given their suggestions.
10. Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel has made a compilation
of the suggestions given by different learned counsel on different
points. The same are reproduced herein below:
S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
1. SHOW CAUSE Mr. C.U. Singh, RELEVANT DETAILS IN SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE Sr. Adv. and NOTICE:
Ms. Fauzia
a) Specific grounds on the basis of which
Shakil, Adv.
the violation is alleged and the demolition
is proposed;
b) Description of building/structure proposed
to be demolished and the extent of
unauthorized construction, if any;
c) Details of relevant applicable provisions
and laws alleged to have been breached
(municipal laws, forest laws etc.);
d) I f t h e a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n c a n b e
compounded or regularized on payment
of a fee/penalty;
e) Time period within which the owner has
to reply; and
f) Documents that the owner has to furnish.
SERVICE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE:
SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE 1. Delivery Method: Serve the Show
Cause Notice by hand to the owner of
the dwelling/commercial establishment
slated for demolition.
2. Witness Requirement: A neighbour of the
owner must be present as a witness during
the notice service and sign the notice.
736 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
3. Report of Service: The officer serving
the notice must prepare a report detailing
the service.
4. Alternate Delivery: If the owner is not
residing in the district, the notice can be
sent via Registered Post/Speed Post AD.
SERVICE OF NOTICE TO OCCUPIER:
1. Occupier Notification: If the property
is occupied by someone other than the
owner, serve the notice to the occupier
in the same manner.
2. Direction to Occupier: The notice must
include a directive for the occupier to
inform the owner about the notice.
3. Affixing Notice: The notice should
be affixed to the gate/door or another
conspicuous part of the property
proposed for demolition.
UPLOADING NOTICE ON THE WEBSITE:
Copy of notice and service report should also
be uploaded on the website of the municipal
corporation or concerned authority.
TIME TO FILE REPLY: Minimum 2 months-
time
REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE: The
owner shall file its reply to the show cause
notice within the time prescribed, along with
relevant supporting material. A receiving
or acknowledgment of the reply should be
provided to the owner.
Ms. Nitya Issuance of Show Cause Notice:
Ramakrishnan,
• If the authority believes an unauthorized
Sr. Adv.
building/development exists, a show
cause notice must be served to both
the owner and occupier before any
action is taken.
• The notice must also be pasted on
the property and published in three
newspapers with over one lakh
circulation—one each in Hindi, English,
and a third language designated by
the state.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 737

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
• The newspaper notice only needs to
include the owner’s and occupier’s
names, property address, and a link
to a website with the full notice and
timestamp.
Content of the Notice: The notice must
specify the legal provisions under which it
is issued, the violations identified, and the
specific portion and extent of the building/
structure that is deemed illegal.
Time for Response: The notice must provide
a response period of no less than 45 days
and no more than 60 days for the owner/
occupier to justify why the structure should
not be demolished.
Notice to Family Members: If the owner or
occupier cannot be found, the notice may be
served to a member of their immediate family,
with additional time for response granted in
such cases
Mr. Mohd. A. Publication of notice of demolition in
Nizammudin at least 10 days in advance in local
Pasha & Ms. newspapers in addition to personal
Rashmi Singh, service of notice on the owner of the
Advs. property sought to be demolished;
B. Personal hearing of owner of property;
Mr. M.R. Service of Notice: Once the list is prepared,
Shamshad, Sr. the officer must serve written notice at least
Adv. 60 days before the proposed demolition. The
notice must contain:
a. Reason for Proposed Demolition: A
brief explanation of why the demolition
is proposed.
b. Personal Service of Notice (Dasti): The
notice must be served in-person with two
neighborhood witnesses, as well as by
registered post (acknowledgment due),
in line with procedures laid down by High
Courts and the Supreme Court for service
of notices or summons.
c. Online Upload: The notice must be
uploaded on the Municipal authority’s
website.
738 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
d. Vernacular Language: The notice must
be provided in the vernacular language(s)
prevalent in the area where the property
is located.
e. Affidavit of Compliance: The officer
must swear an affidavit 10 days before
the demolition, confirming compliance
with all notice-serving procedures, and
submit it to the Divisional Commissioner
or equivalent officer.
f. Notice to Owner in Custody: If the owner
is in custody, the notice must be served via
the concerned Judicial Magistrate at least
60 days before the proposed demolition.
Explanation:
The 60-day period begins from the date of
delivery of the notice to the affected persons.
2. CONSIDERATION Mr. C.U. Singh, 1. Review of Owner’s Reply: Authorities
OF THE REPLY Sr. Adv. and shall consider the reply and supporting
TO SHOW Ms. Fauzia material provided by the owner.
CAUSE Shakil, Adv. 2. Request for Additional Information:
If additional explanations/material are
needed, the authority will inform the owner
in writing. The owner will have 4 weeks to
furnish the requested information.
3. Personal Hearing: The authority will issue
an intimation to the owner specifying the
date and time for a personal hearing. The
personal hearing for the occupier will not
replace the need for a hearing with the
owner or authorized representative.
Ms. Nitya The person(s) in response to the notice shall
Ramakrishnan, have the following rights:
Sr. Adv.
1. The concerned person in receipt of the
above-mentioned Notice shall have the
right to engage an Advocate/Counsel
and may also be allowed to appear
in- person.
2. To present evidence that the construction
is legal.
3. The opportunity to compound the
offence, that is, to make modifications
to comply with the regulations.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 739

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
3. PROPOSED Mr. C.U. Singh, The authority shall in the meanwhile also
ACTION Sr. Adv. and consider the nature and extent of unauthorized
SHOULD BE Ms. Fauzia construction, if the unauthorized construction
PROPORTIONAL Shakil, Adv. can be regularized or compounded on
TO THE payment of fee/penalty under applicable law.
VIOLATION If yes, then the owner shall be intimated of
such avenue and provided some reasonable
time, not being less than 4 weeks, to avail the
option. In case the breaches are technical and
inconsequential in character, and the house/
commercial establishment can be saved by
removing the offending part, the owner may
be permitted to remove the encroachment and
save the building. The administrative action
should be proportional to the alleged breach
and demolition should be the last option.
4. ORDER/ Mr. C.U. Singh, Authority’s Satisfaction and Demolition
NOTICE OF Sr. Adv. and Order: After considering the owner’s reply,
DEMOLITION Ms. Fauzia written explanation, and physical hearing,
Shakil, Adv. if the authority is satisfied that there are
violations beyond condonable limits or cannot
be regularized, an order for demolition may
be made.
Relevant Details in the Demolition Order:
● The demolition order must state reasons
for the proposed action and mention the
proposed demolition date. A minimum of
8 weeks must be given from the service
of the order, allowing the owner time to
approach the courts, remove belongings,
and arrange alternate accommodation.
● The head of the authority’s department
must record satisfaction, certify
compliance with guidelines, and ensure
the action is taken in good faith.
Service of Demolition Order: The service of
the demolition order should follow the same
procedure as the show cause notice.
Ms. Nitya If, after the abovementioned inquiry, the
ORDER/
Ramakrishnan, appropriate authority decides that the
NOTICE OF
Sr. Adv. demolition of the offending part or the whole
DEMOLITION
of the building/ development/ structure it will
issue an order affording the owner/occupier
to demolish the offending portions within
30 (thirty) days failing which it will issue a
notice of demolition in the manner explained
hereunder.
740 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
Personal Service of Demolition Notice:
The demolition notice must be served
personally on the owner/occupier by a Nodal
officer, appointed in each state for serving
and implementing such orders, ensuring
adherence to timelines.
Period for Appeal and Legal Recourse:
The notice must state a period for appeal
and legal recourse, which shall not be less
than 60 days.
Additional Publication Requirements: The
demolition notice must also be pasted on the
property and published in three newspapers
(Hindi, English, and a third language). The
newspaper notice needs to include only the
owner’s/occupier’s name, property address,
and a link to a website where the full notice
with a timestamp is uploaded.
Scope of Demolition: No demolition shall
extend beyond the portion deemed illegal. Any
excess demolition will require compensation
as per Part C of these guidelines.
Special Permission for Demolition: If
the owner or occupier is not found, special
permission from the Nodal officer is required
before proceeding with the demolition.
Mr. M.R. Survey of the Neighborhood: If an officer
Shamshad, Sr. believes a dwelling unit, house, or shop is
Adv. subject to demolition, they must first conduct
a neighborhood survey to determine how
many properties in the area are also liable for
demolition based on municipal law.
Preparation of Demolition List: After
completing the neighborhood survey, the
officer shall prepare a list of all houses or units
deemed fully or partially liable for demolition.
Mr. Mohd. Order of demolition must record reasons
Nizammudin therefor inter alia including the following:
Pasha & Ms.
I. Documents relied upon by owner to
Rashmi Singh,
prove ownership/validity of property;
Advs.
II. Relevant provisions under which
property is illegal/encroachment;
III. Alternative rehabilitation or compensation
provided to owner;
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 741

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
IV. Time given to owner to move belongings
etc. from property sought to be
demolished;
No order of demolition ought to be passed till
sufficient time has been granted to the owner
of property to take recourse to effective legal
remedies including appeal/challenge against
the order of demolition. In any proceedings
where demolition is challenged on the ground
of the same being
punitive, the fact that the aggrieved person has
been singled out for action and no action has
been taken against similarly situated persons
in the vicinity must be a valid consideration
for grant of relief;
5. CHALLENGE TO Mr. C.U. Singh, Judicial Examination of Demolition
THE ORDER OF Sr. Adv. and Orders: Courts must assess whether the
DEMOLITION Ms. Fauzia proposed demolition is motivated by malice
Shakil, Adv. or bad faith.
Presumption of Malice in Law:
(a) If the demolition is triggered by the owner’s
or a family member’s involvement in a
criminal case, it will be presumed punitive
and illegal, making the action malicious.
(b) If the authority acts with undue haste after
the owner or family member becomes
involved in a criminal case, malafide intent
will be presumed.
(c) If the authority selectively targets a
property while ignoring neighbouring
properties with similar violations, this “pick
and choose” action will also be presumed
malicious.
Mr. M.R. 4. After service of notice as per the procedure
Shamshad, Sr. set out above, the aggrieved person shall take
Adv. appropriate remedy within fifteen days and the
appropriate authority, after giving opportunity
of personal hearing shall decide the same
within fifteen days thereafter and the order
of disposal shall be communicated to the
aggrieved person on WhatsApp, email etc.
as provided on the application challenging the
notice. Further, the order disposing the appeal
shall also be uploaded on the respective
Municipal Corporation Website.
742 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
5. In case the Appellate remedy is provided
and appeal is filed, the demolition shall not
be carried out till disposal of the said appeal.
In case of dismissal of appeal, the Appellate
Authority shall give at least ten days to the
residents, occupants to vacate the premises.
The order of disposal shall be served on
the appellant through electronic modes and
immediately uploaded on the website.
6. ACT OF Mr. C.U. Singh, No demolitions should be carried out in the
DEMOLITION Sr. Adv. and early morning and late night. Video recording
Ms. Fauzia of the same shall be carried out under the
Shakil, Adv. orders of the said authority. No persons or
their movable property, shall be subject to
any direct or indirect harm.
7. MALFEASANCE Mr. C.U. Singh, I. If the proposed action of demolition was
OF ERRING Sr. Adv. and in bad faith and actuated by malice,
OFFICERS AND Ms. Fauzia disciplinary proceeding may be initiated
ACCOUNTABILITY Shakil, Adv. against the erring officers under their
applicable service rules.

II. In case any demolition is carried out in
violation of the guidelines, the erring
officers and the head of the department
that has carried out the demolition
shall be personally liable. In addition,
proceedings for contempt against the
erring officers may be initiated. The
compensation to be paid to the owner
shall also be recoverable from the salary
of the erring officers including the head
of the department.

III. The erring officers shall also be liable
for prosecution u/s 198,324,326(f),
326(g),56,59 BNS
Ms. Nitya Government officers, Ministers, Member of
Ramakrishnan, Legislative assembly, Member of Parliament
Sr. Adv. of the Union or the State government shall
MALFEASANCE not make any statement endorsing illegal and
OF ERRING unconstitutional penal measures and that if
OFFICERS AND the such statements are made the same shall
ACCOUNTABILITY be a cause for criminal prosecution as well
as tortious liability on part of the persons or
class of persons who have suffered from such
unconstitutional penal measures.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 743

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
Mr. Mohd. Strict Action Against Officials Involved in
Nizammudin Demolitions:
Pasha & Ms.
• Ministers: Ministers who publicly justify or
Rashmi Singh,
support demolitions immediately following
Advs.
accusations against the victim, whether
before or after the demolition, must face
strict action.

• Municipal Officers: Municipal officers
responsible for carrying out such
demolitions should be held accountable.

• Police Officers: Police officers who order,
aid, or assist in the execution of illegal
demolitions, especially when linked to
accusations of an offence, must also face
consequences.

Court-Monitored Inquiry: The Court
should order a monitored inquiry into
demolitions linked to accusations of
offences, as highlighted in the Applicant’s IA
No.19164/2024, Paragraph 5.

Immediate Suspension and Departmental
Action: Immediate suspension and
departmental action should be taken against
all officers involved in executing extrajudicial
demolition orders.

Criminal Proceedings Under IPC:

• Criminal proceedings under Section
326(g) of the Indian Penal Code (2023)
should be initiated against officers involved
in extrajudicial demolitions.

• This action should not be considered
as performed in an official capacity, and
the officers should be tried as private
individuals for causing the destruction of
human dwellings or unlawful arrest of the
aggrieved persons.
Mr. M.R. • While undertaking the process of
Shamshad, Sr. demolition, the authorities or nominated
Adv. officers shall not consider demolition of
unauthorized/illegal houses by targeting
one house or few houses in a particular
neighborhood or the town.
744 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
• In case the Appropriate authority is
of the opinion that a house or a set
of particular houses are liable to be
demolished, to ensure fairness and
non-discriminatory act of appropriate
authorities, the Municipal authority or
Appropriate authority shall undertake
the overall exercise of identifying illegal
constructions and fix the timeline for
removal of the encroachment/demolition.

• Under no circumstances, one or two
houses shall be demolished in a particular
neighborhood until the authority is of the
opinion that no other house has illegal
construction/encroachment etc.

• Violation of this guideline shall attract
penal consequences against the erring
Officers and the aggrieved person
shall be adequately compensated for
consequential effect of the violation.
In addition to this the violation of this
guideline shall also amount to contempt
of this Court on the lines of violation of
the guidelines in terms of the judgment of
this Hon’ble Court in D.K. Basu v. State
of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416
8. COMPENSATORY Mr. C.U. Singh, Damages for Set-Aside Demolition: If the
DAMAGES TO Sr. Adv. and proposed demolition is set aside, the owner
OWNER NI CASE Ms. Fauzia is entitled to damages for mental agony,
OF MALICIOUS Shakil, Adv. harassment, and litigation costs.
OR ILLEGAL
Compensatory Damages for Illegal
DEMOLITION
Demolition:

• If the demolition is carried out in violation of
guidelines or declared illegal by the court,
the owner is entitled to compensatory
damages, which include:
° Cost of reconstruction of the
demolished structure
° Loss of belongings
° Loss of reputation
° Rent paid for alternate accommodation
• The court may also direct the authorities
to rebuild the structure and award punitive
damages.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 745

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
COMPENSATORY Ms. Nitya Appointment of Claim Commissioner:
DAMAGES TO Ramakrishnan,
• Any judicial officer may be appointed as a
OWNER NI CASE Sr. Adv.
Claim Commissioner, empowered to grant
OF MALICIOUS
compensation or restitution to persons
OR ILLEGAL
whose buildings or structures have been
DEMOLITION
demolished illegally or arbitrarily by the
authority.
• Orders for compensation by the Claim
Commissioner shall be treated as decrees
of a Civil Court and executed accordingly.
Personal Liability of Officers:
• If an officer willfully or negligently fails to
comply with Supreme Court guidelines,
causing damage or loss, they will be
personally liable for recovery of damages.
• Recovery may occur through salary
deductions, forfeiture of entitlements, or
other lawful means, subject to a proper
inquiry where the officer will be given
an opportunity to be heard by the Claim
Commissioner.
State Compensation Scheme for Illegal
Demolition:
• The State must establish a scheme
to provide relief, restitution, and
compensation to persons whose property
has been illegally demolished.
• The scheme will cover financial assistance,
rehabilitation support, and restoration of
property rights for the aggrieved persons
and their family members.
Documentation Requirements: All actions,
steps, and procedures taken by the authority
or Claim Commissioner must be fully and
accurately documented, including:
° Issuance of orders, notices, and details
of responsible officers.
° Records of inquiry processes, including
complaints, responses, findings, and
recommendations.
° Recovery steps from erring officers,
including calculations and methods.
746 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
° Copies of communications with concerned
persons, including notices, final
determinations, and acknowledgments
of receipt.

Online Portal for Documentation: An online
portal shall be established for preserving and
documenting all actions and communications
related to demolition and recovery. This
portal will be available for audit, review, or
inspection by authorized authorities and will
house all records including notices, orders,
and communications, ensuring transparency
and accessibility.
Mr. Mohd. • Provision must be made for immediate
Nizammudin interim rehabilitation and/or compensation
Pasha & Ms. to persons who are found prima facie to
Rashmi Singh, have been victims of punitive extra-judicial
Advs. demolitions;

• Payment of compensation for loss of
movable/immovable property damaged
or destroyed and restoration of the
underlying land to persons found upon
final adjudication to have been victims of
punitive extra-judicial demolitions.
9. DISSEMINATION Mr. C.U. Singh, The guidelines should be translated in local
& Sr. Adv. and language and widely disseminated including
COMPLIANCES Ms. Fauzia publication in local newspapers and should
OF THE Shakil, Adv. also be uploaded on the official website of
GUIDELINES the municipal authorities.
Mr. Mohd. Nodal officers must be appointed by the
Nizammudin State Governments to perform the following
Pasha & Ms. functions:
Rashmi Singh,
i) to ensure strict compliance of
Advs.
guidelines issued by this Hon’ble
Court;

ii) to provide information to owners as
to legal provisions under which their
dwellings etc are illegal, legal remedies
available etc.;

The Nodal Officers so appointed shall be
made personally liable in case of violation or
non-compliance of guidelines issued by this
Hon’ble Court.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 747

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

S.No. TOPIC/ ISSUE COUNSEL’S/ SUMMARY OF SUGGESTIONS
PARTY NAME
Mr. M.R. Appropriate authorities/Municipal authorities
Shamshad, Sr. shall nominate group of officers who shall
Adv. be answerable to courts/administration as
and when the issue relating to demolition of
houses, structure, shops etc. are questioned
in courts of law or any other forum. The said
Nominated Officer shall report to the Divisional
Commissioner / equivalent officer thereto.

11. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned SG, has also given his suggestions. The
same are reproduced herein below:
“In view of the legal position exposited above, the following
suggestions are put forth by the Ld. Solicitor General on
behalf of the Respondents:
1. The specific requirements of notice as provided
in the relevant municipal law must be strictly
followed. Further, the notice must clearly state
the alleged violation for which demolition action is
proposed. Where such notice period is not specifically
provided, and the case does not fall within the
exception noted in paras 2 and 3 below, a reasonable
notice period of one week to 10 days may be read
into the relevant statute.
2. Exception: It is also pertinent to note that this
Hon’ble Court has itself, in Order dt. 17.09.2024,
carved an exception in case of “unauthorised
structure[s] in any public place such as a road,
street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river
body or water bodies and also to cases where
there is an order of demolition made by a Court
of law.” Therefore, it is submitted that any guidelines/
SoP framed by this Hon’ble Court may not provide for
notice in such cases, in case the relevant municipal
law does not specifically provide for the same. Every
municipal law also provides for situations where
demolitions may be carried out without notice. For
instance, Section 26C of the Uttar Pradesh Urban
Planning and Development Act, 1973 states:
748 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“Section 26-C. Authority may without notice
remove anything erected or deposited in
contraventions of Act.-
The Authority or an officer authorised by it in
this behalf may, without notice, cause to be
removed-
(a) Any wall, fence, rail, post. Step,
booth or other structure whether fixed
or movable and whether of a permanent
or temporary nature or any fixture which
shall be erected, or set in or upon or
over any street or upon or over any open
channel, drain. well or tank contrary to the
provisions of this Act.
(b) Any stall, chair, bench, box, ladder, bale,
board or shelf of any other thing whatever
placed, deposited, projected, attached or
suspended in, upon, from or to any place
in contravention of this Act.”
3. It is submitted that a perusal of the Chart of
demolitions submitted by the Petitioners (at pp. 28 –
32 of the Compilation of Suggestions submitted by
the Ld. Nodal Senior Counsel), itself notes that the
demolitions at S. nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 22) were
all of structures that amounted to illegal encroachment
in public places, which itself has been carved out of
this Hon’ble Court’s Order dt. 17.09.2024. Therefore,
it is submitted that the SoP framed by this
Hon’ble Court may not allow for notice in case
of encroachment on public land, if the relevant
municipal law allows for such demolition without
notice. At best, the illegal encroachers on the said
public land/public place, may be granted 48 hours
to vacate such encroachment. This Hon’ble Court
in the Delhi Ceiling cases (MC Mehta v. Union of
India), has also endorsed a 48 hour notice period
in certain cases.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 749

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

4. Manner of Service of Notice: It is submitted that
most municipal laws provide for the manner of
service of notice. For instance, Section 43 of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 provides for the service of notice, either to be
handed over in person, or if such person cannot be
found, then by affixation on some conspicuous part
of his last known place of residence or business
or on some conspicuous part of land or building to
which it relates, or by registered post. It is therefore
submitted that (i) the manner of service specified
in the relevant municipal law must be strictly
followed; (ii) if the relevant statute is silent on
the issue of service of notice, then it must be
sent through registered post, and if such post
is returned unserved/refused, then it must be
affixed on some conspicuous part of the building/
property against which the action is proposed;
and (iii) in all cases, where practicable, the
relevant municipal authority must also upload
such proposed action on its portal.
5. Procedure to be followed after service of notice:
It is submitted that most municipal laws have a
specific procedure to be followed after service of
notice – such as an opportunity for hearing, before a
final demolition order is passed. Further, the affected
party in most cases also has a right to appeal to
the Appellant Authority designated by the statute.
It is submitted that the procedure for hearing
and appeal as provided in the relevant statute
must be strictly adhered to. Where there is no
such procedure prescribed (and the case does
not fall within the exceptions outlined in paras
2 and 3 above where demolition without notice
is authorised), natural justice requirements of
a hearing must be read into the statute – with
the notice fixing a reasonable time of a week to
appear before the concerned authority for the
personal hearing.
750 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

6. Final order of demolition: The final order of
demolition should be passed after hearing the
noticee (unless the case falls within the exception
outlined in paras 2 – 3 above) and must specify
clearly the violations on account of which it is
being passed. In most municipal laws, the statute
itself provides the noticee himself the opportunity to
undertake the demolition/rectify the violations prior
to demolition being undertaken by the authority.
Where the law does not provide such opportunity,
reasonable period of 48 hours – 72 hours may be
read into the statute to allow the noticee to either
rectify/demolish or vacate the property before the
Authority undertakes demolition. However, it is
submitted that any further period to challenge
such action may not be read into the statute if
such period is not provided. This is because any
writ challenges to demolition action are in any event
treated as urgent by the Constitutional Courts, and
72 hours is sufficient time for the aggrieved persons
to approach the courts.
7. It is again reiterated that at the first instance,
the municipal laws must be strictly followed
qua the requirements of notice, service of
notice, procedure of hearing, and final order of
demolition. The suggestions above are merely meant
to supplement the municipal law where the same is
warranted on account of lacunae in the said laws.
Furthermore, it is submitted that such guidelines
should not allow for illegal encroachments on
public places, waterways etc to continue with
impunity when the relevant statute itself does
not provide for notice in such cases.”
12. The scope of the present petitions is limited. The question that will
have to be considered is, as to whether the properties of the 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 or not?
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 751

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

13. For considering the said question, we will be required to consider the
principle of the rule of law, which is the very foundation of democratic
governance. We will also have to consider the rights guaranteed
under the Constitution that provide protection to individuals from
arbitrary state action. We will also have to consider in this case the
issue with regard to fairness in the criminal justice system, which
mandates that the legal process should not prejudge the guilt of the
accused. We will also have to touch upon the concept of separation
of powers and the doctrine of public trust in respect of government
officials holding their offices.

II. RULE OF LAW
14. The rule of law has been succinctly conceptualized by AV Dicey,2
which can be summarized into three postulates:
(1) “no man is punishable or can be lawfully made to
suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of
law established in the ordinary legal manner before
the ordinary courts of the land”, as contrasted to the
“the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary,
or discretionary powers of constraint”;
(2) “no man is above the law”, and that “every man,
whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to
the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals”; and
(3) “the predominance of the legal spirit” or that “the
general principles of the constitution… are with us
the result of judicial decisions determining the rights
of private persons in particular cases brought before
the courts”.
15. There can be no doubt with the principle that, no one is above the
law of the land; that everybody is equal before the law.
16. There can also be no doubt with the principle that, under the
constitutional framework there is no scope for arbitrariness by officials,
and that no one can be punished or made to suffer in body or goods

2 AV Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Macmilan and Co. Ltd. (1952), pp.
183-205.
752 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal
manner before the ordinary courts of the land. It is only the courts
which are independent adjudicators of the rights of the parties and
under the constitutional framework it is only they which can impose
punishment.
17. Though the basic principle, as conceptualized by Dicey, largely
remains the same, the concept of ‘rule of law’ has been discussed
subsequently by various scholars. It has been described to mean
that “government officials and citizens are bound by and have to
abide by the law” and that there “must be mechanisms or institutions
that enforce the legal rules if they are breached”.3 It ensures that
“courts should be available to enforce the law and should employ
fair procedures”.4 The law must be just and fair, and “protect the
human rights and dignity of all members of society”.5 Above all,
“the essential purpose of the rule of law is to prevent the abuse of
power”.6 Lord Bingham sets out as one of the facets of the rule of
the law, the following7:
“(4) Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise
the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the
purpose for which the powers were conferred, without
exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably.”
18. The rule of law has also been described as “an umbrella concept
for a number of legal and institutional instruments to protect citizens
against the power of the state”.8 Moreover, “Rule of law is integral
to and necessary for democracy and good governance”, because
“attempts to democratize without a functional legal system in place
have resulted in social disorder”.9

3 Tamanaha, Brian Z. “The history and elements of the rule of law.” Singapore Journal of Legal Studies
(2012): 232-247.
4 Fallon Jr, Richard H. “The rule of law as a concept in constitutional discourse.” Colum. L. Rev. 97
(1997): 1.
5 Stein, Robert. “Rule of law: what does it mean.” Minn. J. Int’l L. 18 (2009): 293.
6 Raitio, Juha. “The Concept of the Rule of Law - Just a Political Ideal, or a Binding Principle?.” Giornale
di Storia Costituzionale, 45, 2023, pp. 37-46. HeinOnline.
7 Bingham, Tom. The Rule of Law, p.60.
8 Bedner, Adriaan. “An elementary approach to the rule of law.” Hague Journal on the rule of law 2.1
(2010): 48-74.
9 Peerenboom, Randall. “Human rights and rule of law: What’s the relationship.” Geo. J. Int’l L. 36
(2004): 809.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 753

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

19. It can thus be seen that the law must be just and fair, and also protect
the human rights and dignity of all members of society. At the same
time, the essential purpose of the rule of law is to prevent the abuse
of power. The rule of law is an umbrella concept to protect citizens
against the power of the State. It is integral to and necessary for
democracy and good governance.
20. While we consider this aspect, we are of the view that the concept
of rule of law needs to be considered broadly. The legal sanctity of
practices in the past such as slavery in the United States, apartheid
in South Africa, or untouchability in India would have to be considered
as antitheses to the rule of law apart from being a serious affront
to human dignity.
21. In this respect, we may refer to the work of various scholars in the
field. Thus, “for the rule of law to measure up to the requirements of
a legitimate constitutional democracy, it must be more than the rule
of law in the narrow sense”.10 In the modern constitutional framework,
“the rule of law would seem to need democratic accountability,
procedural fairness, and even perhaps substantive grounding”,11 such
as in the provisions of the Constitution. In other words, “the rule of law
means the regulative role of certain institutions and their associated
legal and judicial practices”.12 It has been beautifully observed:
“That is the law. And no Spartan, subject or citizen, man
or woman, slave or king, is above the law. Where-ever
law ends, tyranny begins”.13
22. This Court in the case of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj
Narain,14 has held the rule of law to be part of the basic structure of
the Constitution. It will be apt to refer to the following observations
of Justice Mathew:
“341…I cannot conceive of rule of law as a twinkling
star up above the Constitution. To be a basic structure,
it must be a terrestrial concept having its habitat within

10 Rosenfeld, Michel. “The rule of law and the legitimacy of constitutional democracy.” S. Cal. L. Rev.
74 (2000): 1307.
11 Ibid
12 John Rawls, Samuel Freeman (ed.), Collected Papers (Harvard University Press, 2021).
13 Id. at 306.
14 [1976] 2 SCR 347
754 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the four corners of the Constitution. The provisions of
the Constitution were enacted with a view to ensure the
rule of law...”
23. The relevance of the rule of law in our constitutional system has
been considered by this Court in various judgments. In the case
of National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and another,15 this Court was considering the plight of
Chakma community in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. This Court
observed thus:
“No State Government worth the name can tolerate such
threats by one group of person to another group of persons;
it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such
assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its
Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Those giving
such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance
with law. The State Government must act impartially and
carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health
and well-being of Chakmas residing in the State without
being inhibited by local politics.”
24. This Court in unequivocal terms held that no State Government worth
the name can tolerate threats by one group of person to another
group of persons. It has been held that the State is duty bound to
protect the group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will
fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. It
has been held that the State Government must act impartially and
carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-
being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhibited by
local politics.
25. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India &
Ors.,16 while dealing with the constitutionality of the Aadhaar Act,
2016, this Court held:
“As the interpreter of the Constitution, it is the duty of this
Court to be vigilant against State action that threatens to

15 1996 INSC 38 : [1996] 1 SCR 278 : (1996) 1 SCC 742
16 [2018] 8 SCR 1 : (2019) 1 SCC 1
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 755

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

upset the fine balance between the power of the state
and rights of citizens and to safeguard the liberties that
inhere in our citizens.”
26. In his dissenting opinion, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (as His
Lordship then was) described the principle of the rule of law as under:
“The rule of law is the cornerstone of modern democratic
societies and protects the foundational values of a
democracy. When the rule of law is interpreted as a principle
of constitutionalism, it assumes a division of governmental
powers or functions that inhibits the exercise of arbitrary
State power. It also assumes the generality of law: the
individual’s protection from arbitrary power consists in the
fact that her personal dealings with the State are regulated
by general rules, binding on private citizens and public
officials alike.”
27. This sentiment was echoed in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank
Ltd. & Ors.,17 where this Court held:
“If Rule of law is absent, there is no accountability,
there is abuse of power and corruption. When the Rule
of law disappears, we are ruled not by laws but by the
idiosyncrasies and whims of those in power.”
28. Again, earlier this year, in Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India
& Others,18 the concept of the rule of law was discussed in detail.
It was held:
“Rule of law means wherever and whenever the State fails
to perform its duties, the Court would step in to ensure
that the Rule of law prevails over the abuse of the process
of law. Such abuse may result from, inter alia, inaction or
even arbitrary action of protecting the true offenders or
failure by different authorities in discharging statutory or
other obligations in consonance with the procedural and
penal statutes. Breach of the Rule of law, amounts to
negation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

17 [2019] 16 SCR 1 : (2020) 6 SCC 1
18 [2024] 1 SCR 743 : (2024) 5 SCC 481
756 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

The concept of Rule of law is closely intertwined
with adjudication by courts of law and also with the
consequences of decisions taken by courts. Therefore,
the judiciary has to carry out its obligations effectively and
true to the spirit with which it is sacredly entrusted the task
and always in favour of Rule of law. There can be no Rule
of law if there is no equality before the law; and Rule of
law and equality before the law would be empty words if
their violation is not a matter of judicial scrutiny or judicial
review and relief and all these features would lose their
significance if the courts don’t step in to enforce the Rule
of law. Thus, the judiciary is the guardian of the Rule of law
and the central pillar of a democratic State. Therefore, the
judiciary has to perform its duties and function effectively
and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly
entrusted to it.
Further, in a democracy where Rule of law is its essence,
it has to be preserved and enforced particularly by courts
of law. Compassion and sympathy have no role to play
where Rule of law is required to be enforced. If the Rule
of law has to be preserved as the essence of democracy,
it is the duty of the courts to enforce the same without
fear or favour, affection or ill-will.”
29. It is thus well settled that the rule of law has been described as a
safeguard against the arbitrary use of the State power. It ensures that
the actions of the Government and its authorities are governed by
established legal principles, rather than arbitrary discretion. Whenever
the citizens in the form of mobs have broken the law to vandalize
or to declare threats, the Court has cast an obligation on the State
to prevent such threats or assaults. This obligation underscores the
State’s responsibility to maintain law and order and protect citizens
from unlawful actions that undermine the rule of law itself.
30. It is not necessary to state that failure to uphold these obligations
can erode public confidence in the justice system, leading to an
environment where the rule of law is compromised by lawlessness.
Ensuring the preservation of the principle of rule of law and the
protection of the civil rights and liberties of citizens is essential for
protecting the constitutional democracy.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 757

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

31. The concept of the rule of law is not an abstract principle but is
reflected in the substantive content of various legal domains. In
this regard, it would be apt to refer to the following articulation of
the rule of law:
“The rule of law provides a framework and value system
in which institutions, principles, and rules are implemented
to ‘reign (sic) in the arbitrary exercise of state power and
to prevent the abuse of power, to ensure predictability
and stability, to make sure that individuals know that their
lives, their liberty, their property will not be taken away
from them arbitrarily and abusively’. It is from this core of
understanding that constitutional law, criminal law, criminal
procedure, due process, equal protection, international law,
the laws of war, and human rights law find their moral,
ethical, philosophical, and political justification in controlling
the actions of executive power”.19
(emphasis added)
32. It has been emphasized that the rule of law provides a framework
and value system to ‘rein in the arbitrary exercise of state power and
to prevent the abuse of power, to ensure predictability and stability,
to make sure that individuals know that their lives, their liberty, their
property will not be taken away from them arbitrarily and abusively’.
33. It can thus be said that the processes enshrined in constitutional
law, criminal law and procedure are facets of the rule of law and
thus serve to regulate the exercise of executive power.

III. SEPARATION OF POWERS
34. Another important aspect that needs to be addressed in the present
matter is with regard to the doctrine of separation of powers, as
envisaged in our Constitution. Our Constitution has earmarked
separate areas for exercise of powers and for discharge of duties to
the three organs of the democracy, viz., the Executive, the Legislature,
and the Judiciary. The Legislature is empowered to enact the laws
within the framework of the Constitution; the Executive is entrusted

19 Arthur H. Garrison, “The Rule of Law and the Rise of Control of Executive Power”, 18(2) Texas Review
of Law & Politics 303-355 (2014).
758 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

with the powers and is expected to discharge its duties in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution and the laws as enacted by
the competent Legislature. The adjudicatory function is entrusted
to the Judiciary. In several judgments, this Court has reiterated the
principle governing the separation of powers.
35. In the case of In Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others v.
State of Punjab,20 a Constitution Bench of this Court observed thus:
“It may not be possible to frame an exhaustive definition
of what executive function means and implies. Ordinarily
the executive power connotes the residue of governmental
functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions
are taken away. The Indian Constitution has not indeed
recognised the doctrine of separation of powers in its
absolute rigidity but the functions of the different parts
or branches of the Government have been sufficiently
differentiated and consequently it can very well be said
that our Constitution does not contemplate assumption, by
one organ or part of the State, of functions that essentially
belong to another.”
36. It could thus be seen that the Constitution Bench of this Court has
held that our Constitution does not contemplate assumption, by
one organ or part of the State, of functions that essentially belong
to another.
37. In the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain and another
(supra) reiterating the position that the principle of separation of
power is a part of the basic structure, a Constitution Bench of this
Court held thus:
“The political usefulness of the doctrine of separation of
powers is now widely recognized though a satisfactory
definition of the three functions is difficult to evolve. But
the function of the Parliament is to make laws, not to
decide cases. The British Parliament in its unquestioned
supremacy could enact a legislation for the settlement of a
dispute or it could, with impunity, legislate for the boiling of

20 [1955] 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 759

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

the Bishop of Rochester’s cook. The Indian Parliament will
not direct that an accused in a pending case shall stand
acquitted or that a suit shall stand decreed…
The reason of this restraint is not that the Indian Constitution
recognizes any rigid separation of powers. Plainly, it does
not. The reason is that the concentration of powers in any
one organ may, by upsetting that fine balance between
the three organs, destroy the fundamental premises of a
democratic government to which we are pledged.”
38. The Constitution Bench of this Court though admits that the Indian
Constitution does not recognize any rigid separation of powers, yet
holds that, by upsetting the fine balance between the three organs,
the fundamental premises of a democratic government to which we
have pledged, will be destroyed. The Court observed that the Indian
Parliament will not direct that an accused in a pending case shall
stand acquitted or that a suit shall stand decreed.
39. A Nine-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of I.R. Coelho (Dead)
by LRs. v. State of T.N.21 recognized the doctrine of the separation
of powers as a system of “check and balance”. The Court observed
that the separation of powers leads to “prevention of tyranny”. The
Court while emphasizing on the interconnectedness between judicial
review, rule of law, and the separation of power observed thus:
“Equality, rule of law, judicial review and separation of
powers form parts of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Each of these concepts are intimately connected. There
can be no rule of law, if there is no equality before the
law. These would be meaningless if the violation was not
subject to the judicial review. All these would be redundant
if the legislative, executive and judicial powers are vested
in one organ. Therefore, the duty to decide whether the
limits have been transgressed has been placed on the
judiciary.
Judicial review is justified by combination of “the principle
of separation of powers, rule of law, the principle

21 [2007] 1 SCR 706 : (2007) 2 SCC 1
760 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of constitutionality and the reach of judicial review”
(Democracy Through Law by Lord Styen, p. 131).”
40. This Court reiterated that equality, rule of law, judicial review
and separation of powers form parts of the basic structure of the
Constitution. Each of these concepts are intimately connected. It
has been held that there can be no rule of law if there is no equality
before the law. It observed that rights would be meaningless if the
violation was not subject to the judicial review. The Court records
the danger of legislative, executive and judicial powers being vested
in one organ and, therefore, held that the duty to decide whether
the limits have been transgressed has been placed on the judiciary.
41. While considering the importance of the doctrine of separation of
powers in today’s world of positive rights and justifiable social and
economic entitlements, this Court in the case of State of U.P. and
others v. Jeet S. Bisht and another22 observed thus:
“If we notice the evolution of separation of powers doctrine,
traditionally the checks and balances dimension was only
associated with governmental excesses and violations.
But in today’s world of positive rights and justifiable
social and economic entitlements, hybrid administrative
bodies, private functionaries discharging public functions,
we have to perform the oversight function with more
urgency and enlarge the field of checks and balances to
include governmental inaction. Otherwise we envisage the
country getting transformed into a state of repose. Social
engineering as well as institutional engineering therefore
forms part of this obligation.”
(emphasis added)
42. While expanding the contours of the doctrine of separation of powers,
the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Kalpana Mehta
and others v. Union of India and others,23 observed thus:
“… the concept of constitutional limitation is a facet of
the doctrine of separation of powers. At this stage, we

22 [2007] 7 SCR 705 : (2007) 6 SCC 586
23 [2018] 4 SCR 1 : (2018) 7 SCC 1
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 761

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

may clearly state that there can really be no straitjacket
approach in the sphere of separation of powers when issues
involve democracy, the essential morality that flows from
the Constitution, interest of the citizens in certain spheres
like environment, sustenance of social interest, etc. and
empowering the populace with the right to information or
right to know in matters relating to candidates contesting
election. There can be many an example where this Court
has issued directions to the executive and also formulated
guidelines for facilitation and in furtherance of fundamental
rights and sometimes for the actualisation and fructification
of statutory rights.”
43. This Court, therefore, observed that this Court can issue a direction
to the executive and also formulate guidelines for facilitation and in
furtherance of fundamental rights and sometimes for the actualization
and fructification of statutory rights.
44. The aforesaid decision would lead to a question, as to whether
when the adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary, can
the officers of the State Government take upon themselves the
adjudicatory function and without a person undergoing a trial be
inflicted with a punishment of demolition of his properties. In our view,
such a situation would be wholly impermissible in our constitutional
set up. The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its
core functions.

IV. DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC TRUST AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
45. When we are considering the issue with regard to ‘Rule of Law’
and ‘Separation of Powers’, we will also have to take into effect the
matters where the executive transgresses its power and acts as a
Judge and demolishes the structures of the persons without following
the procedure prescribed by law. Though the doctrine of public trust
has been largely applied by this Court in environmental matters, it
cannot be disputed that the executive exercises its powers as a
‘trustee’ of the citizens. Therefore, the executive actions must be
consistent with maintaining public trust.
46. Conversely, when the executive acts in breach of the principles of
‘rule of law’ and ‘separation of powers’, the doctrine of public trust
762 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and accountability would come into play. This Court in the case of
Delhi Airtech Services Private Limited and another v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and another24 observed thus:
“213. These authorities are instrumentalities of the State
and the officers are empowered to exercise the power on
behalf of the State. Such exercise of power attains greater
significance when it arises from the statutory provisions.
The level of expectation of timely and just performance
of duty is higher, as compared to the cases where the
power is executively exercised in discharge of its regular
business. Thus, all administrative norms and principles of
fair performance are applicable to them with equal force,
as they are to the government department, if not with a
greater rigour. The well-established precepts of public
trust and public accountability are fully applicable to the
functions which emerge from the public servants or even
the persons holding public office.
214. In State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh [(1997) 4 SCC
430] , this Court, in exercise of the powers of judicial
review, stated that the doctrine of “full faith and credit”
applies to the acts done by the officers in the hierarchy
of the State. They have to faithfully discharge their duties
to elongate public purpose.
215. The concept of public accountability and performance
of functions takes in its ambit, proper and timely action
in accordance with law. Public duty and public obligation
both are essentials of good administration whether by the
State or its instrumentalities. In Centre for Public Interest
Litigation v. Union of India [(2005) 8 SCC 202 : (2006) 1
SCC (Cri) 23] , this Court declared the dictum that State
actions causing loss are actionable under public law.
This is a result of innovation, a new tool with the courts
which are the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens
and would ensure protection against devastating results
of State action. The principles of public accountability
and transparency in State action are applicable to cases

24 [2011] 12 SCR 191 : (2011) 9 SCC 354
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 763

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

of executive or statutory exercise of power, besides
requiring that such actions also not lack bona fides. All
these principles enunciated by the Court over a passage
of time clearly mandate that public officers are answerable
for both their inaction and irresponsible actions. If what
ought to have been done is not done, responsibility should
be fixed on the erring officers; then alone, the real public
purpose of an answerable administration would be satisfied.
216. The doctrine of “full faith and credit” applies to the
acts done by the officers. There is a presumptive evidence
of regularity in official acts, done or performed, and there
should be faithful discharge of duties to elongate public
purpose in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Avoidance and delay in decision-making process in
government hierarchy is a matter of growing concern.
Sometimes delayed decisions can cause prejudice to the
rights of the parties besides there being violation of the
statutory rule.
217. This Court had occasion to express its concern in
different cases from time to time in relation to such matters.
In State of A.P. v. Food Corporation of India [(2004) 13
SCC 53 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 873] , this Court observed
that it is a known fact that in transactions of government
business, no one would own personal responsibility and
decisions would be leisurely taken at various levels.
218. Principles of public accountability are applicable to
such officers/officials with all their rigour. Greater the power
to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair. The
dimensions of administrative law permit judicial intervention
in decisions, though of administrative nature, which are ex
facie discriminatory. The adverse impact of lack of probity
in discharge of public duties can result in varied defects,
not only in the decision-making process but in the final
decision as well. Every officer in the hierarchy of the State,
by virtue of his being “public officer” or “public servant”, is
accountable for his decisions to the public as well as to
the State. This concept of dual responsibility should be
applied with its rigours in the larger public interest and for
proper governance.”
764 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

47. This Court held that the well-established precepts of public trust and
public accountability are fully applicable to the functions which emerge
from the public servants or even the persons holding public office.
It has been held that the doctrine of “full faith and credit” applies
to the acts done by the officers in the hierarchy of the State. They
have to faithfully discharge their duties to elongate public purpose.
48. This Court referring to its earlier decision in the case of Centre
for Public Interest Litigation and another v. Union of India and
another25 held that the State actions causing loss are actionable
under public law. The courts, which are the protectors of civil liberties
of the citizens, would ensure protection against devastating results of
State action. The principles of public accountability and transparency
in State actions are applicable to cases of executive or statutory
exercise of power, besides requiring that such actions also do not
lack bona fides. The Court held that the public officers are answerable
for both their inaction and irresponsible actions. For such actions or
inactions, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers so as
to ensure the real public purpose of an answerable administration.
49. The Court held that the principles of public accountability are
applicable to the government officials with all their rigour. Greater
the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair.
It has been held that every officer in the hierarchy of the State, by
virtue of his being “public officer” or “public servant”, is accountable
for his decisions to the public as well as to the State. It has been
held that the concept of dual responsibility should be applied with
its rigours in the larger public interest and for proper governance.
50. This Court in the case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and
others v. Union of India and others26 had an occasion to consider
the distinction between exercise of power in good faith and misuse
in bad faith. While elaborating the principle of fraud on power, this
Court observed thus:
“119. Fraud on power voids the order if it is not exercised
bona fide for the end design. There is a distinction between
exercise of power in good faith and misuse in bad faith.

25 [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 746 : (2005) 8 SCC 202
26 [1985] Supp. 3 SCR 382 : (1986) 1 SCC 133
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 765

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

The former arises when an authority misuses its power
in breach of law, say, by taking into account bona fide,
and with best of intentions, some extraneous matters
or by ignoring relevant matters. That would render the
impugned act or order ultra vires. It would be a case of
fraud on powers…..”
51. In the case of Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others,27
this Court while considering as to whether the courts exercising
writ jurisdiction could grant relief under the public law to a citizen
complaining of infringement of the indefeasible right guaranteed
under the Constitution, observed thus:
“32. Adverting to the grant of relief to the heirs of a victim
of custodial death for the infraction or invasion of his
rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, it is not always enough to relegate him to the
ordinary remedy of a civil suit to claim damages for the
tortious act of the State as that remedy in private law
indeed is available to the aggrieved party. The citizen
complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right
under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that
for the established violation of the fundamental right to
life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the
courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of
the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative
writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve ‘new tools’
to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the
situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of
Law. While concluding his first Hamlyn Lecture in 1949
under the title “Freedom under the Law” Lord Denning in
his own style warned:
“No one can suppose that the executive will never be
guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You
may be sure that they will sometimes do things which
they ought not to do : and will not do things that they
ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered
by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for

27 [1993] 2 SCR 581 : (1993) 2 SCC 746
766 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure
for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick
and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so
also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions
on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom
in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to
date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions
for negligence…. This is not the task for Parliament … the
courts must do this. Of all the great tasks that lie ahead
this is the greatest. Properly exercised the new powers
of the executive lead to the welfare state; but abused
they lead to a totalitarian state. None such must ever be
allowed in this country.””
[emphasis added]

52. In the case of Common Cause, a registered society v. Union of
India and others,28 this Court observed thus:
“90. Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. I(I) 4th Edn.
(Reissue), (para 203) provides as under:
“Deliberate abuse of public office or authority.—Bad faith
on the part of a public officer or authority will result in civil
liability where the act would constitute a tort but for the
presence of statutory authorisation, as Parliament intends
statutory powers to be exercised in good faith and for the
purpose for which they were conferred. Proof of improper
motive is necessary in respect of certain torts and may
negative a defence of qualified privilege in respect of
defamation, but this is not peculiar to public authorities.
There exists an independent tort of misfeasance by a
public officer or authority which consists in the infliction
of loss by the deliberate abuse of a statutory power, or
by the usurpation of a power which the officer or authority
knows he does not possess, for example by procuring the
making of a compulsory purchase order, or by refusing,
or cancelling or procuring the cancellation of a licence,
from improper motives. However, where there has been

28 [1999] 3 SCR 1279 : (1999) 6 SCC 667
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 767

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

no misfeasance, the fact that a public officer or authority
makes an ultra vires order or invalidly exercises statutory
powers will not of itself found an action for damages.”
91. De Smith in Judicial Review of Administrative Action,
while speaking of tort of misfeasance in public office, says
as under:
“A public authority or person holding a public office may
be liable for the tort of misfeasance in public office where:
(1) there is an exercise or non-exercise of public power,
whether common law, statutory or from some other
source;
(2) which is either (a) affected by malice towards the
plaintiff or (b) the decision maker knows is unlawful;
and
(3) the plaintiff is in consequence deprived of a benefit
or suffers other loss.”
92. De Smith further says as under:
“A power is exercised maliciously if its repository is
motivated by personal animosity towards those who are
directly affected by its exercise. Where misfeasance is
alleged against a decision-making body, it is sufficient to
show that a majority of its members present had made
the decision with the object of damaging the plaintiff.
Often there may be no direct evidence of the existence of
malice, and in these circumstances the court may make
adverse inferences, e.g. from the fact that a decision
was unreasonable, that it could only be explained by
the presence of such a motive. A court will not entertain
allegation of bad faith or malice made against the repository
of a power unless it has been expressly pleaded and
properly particularised.”
53. 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
768 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation
of powers’. We are of the view that in such matters the public officials,
who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for
such high-handed actions.
54. For the executive to act in a transparent manner so as to avoid
the vice of arbitrariness, we are of the view that 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.

V. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
55. While we consider the issue in this case, we will have to reiterate
that even the incarcerated individuals, whether accused, undertrial,
or convicts, have certain rights, as any other citizen. They have a
right to dignity and cannot be subjected to any cruel or inhuman
treatment. The punishment awarded to such persons has to be in
accordance with law. Such punishment cannot be inhuman or cruel.
56. This Court has protected the prisoners from excesses and
arbitrariness of the State and its officials. In the case of Sunil Batra
(I) v. Delhi Administration and others,29 the Court declared that
the use of iron fetters, or the practice of solitary confinement and
cellular segregation is inhuman. Speaking for the Court, Justice
Krishna Iyer, in his inimitable style, states that:
“I hold that bar fetters are a barbarity generally and, like
whipping, must vanish. Civilised consciousness is hostile
to torture within the walled campus. We hold that solitary
confinement, cellular segregation and marginally modified
editions of the same process are inhuman and irrational…
The law is not abracadabra but at once pragmatic and
astute and does not surrender its power before scary
exaggerations of security by prison bosses... Social
justice cannot sleep if the Constitution hangs limp where
its consumers most need its humanism.”

29 [1979] 1 SCR 392 : (1978) 4 SCC 494
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 769

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

57. Again in the case of Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central Jail, Tihar,
New Delhi,30 while observing that the rights enjoyed by prisoners are
not static and will rise to human heights when challenging situations
arise, this Court observed thus:
“12. … prisoners retain all rights enjoyed by free citizens
except those lost necessarily as an incident of confinement.
Moreover, the rights enjoyed by prisoners under Articles
14, 19 and 21, though limited, are not static and will rise
to human heights when challenging situations arise.”
58. In Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration,31 the Court highlighted
Article 21 protects the prisoners against several inflictions. It was held:
“Inflictions may take many protean forms, apart from
physical assaults. Pushing the prisoner into a solitary
cell, denial of a necessary amenity, and, more dreadful
sometimes, transfer to a distant prison where visits or
society of friends or relations may be snapped, allotment
of degrading labour, assigning him to a desperate or tough
gang and the like, may be punitive in effect. Every such
affliction or abridgment is an infraction of liberty or life in
its wider sense and cannot be sustained unless Article
21 is satisfied.”
59. This Court recently in the case of Sukanya Shantha v. Union of
India & Ors.,32 reiterated the constitutional rights of the accused in
the following words:
“The right to live with dignity extends even to the
incarcerated. Not providing dignity to prisoners is a relic
of the colonizers and pre-colonial mechanisms, where
oppressive systems were designed to dehumanize and
degrade those under the control of the State. Authoritarian
regimes of the pre-constitutional era saw prisons not only
as places of confinement but as tools of domination. This
Court, focusing on the changed legal framework brought
out by the Constitution, has recognized that even prisoners
are entitled to the right to dignity…

30 [1979] 1 SCR 512 : (1978) 4 SCC 104
31 [1980] 2 SCR 557 : (1980) 3 SCC 488
32 2024 INSC 753 : [2024] 10 SCR 493
770 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Thus, the jurisprudence which emerges on the rights of
prisoners under Article 21 is that even the incarcerated have
inherent dignity. They are to be treated in a humanely and
without cruelty. Police officers and prison officials cannot
take any disproportionate measures against prisoners.
The prison system must be considerate of the physical
and mental health of prisoners. For instance, if a prisoner
suffers from a disability, adequate steps have to be taken
to ensure their dignity and to offer support.”
60. It is thus clear that no one can take away the fundamental rights
of prisoners or the accused. Incidentally, this Court in the case of
Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and another,33 had an occasion to
consider the question as to what happens when the rights of the
accused or the prisoners are violated, and he becomes a victim
of lawlessness on the part of the State Government which keeps
him in illegal detention for over 14 years after his acquittal. While
granting monetary compensation to the victim in the said case, this
Court observed thus:
“One of the telling ways in which the violation of that right
can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the
mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in
the payment of monetary compensation. Administrative
sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental
rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to
the judiciary to adopt. The ·right to compensation is some
palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act
in the name of public interest and which present for their
protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation
is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some
others too well-known to suffer mention, it is necessary
to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the
rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy.
Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its
officers to the petitioner’s rights. It may have recourse
against those officers.”

33 1983 INSC 85 : [1983] 3 SCR 508
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 771

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

61. Again in the case of Ankush Maruti Shinde and others v. State of
Maharashtra,34 this Court has granted compensation to the accused,
who spent 16 years in jail on false implication by the authorities.
62. From the above discussion, the position that would emerge is that,
firstly, even the accused or the convicts have certain rights and
safeguards in the form of constitutional provisions and criminal
law. Secondly, the State and its officials cannot take arbitrary and
excessive measures against the accused or for that matter even
against the convicts without following the due process as sanctioned
by law. The third principle that would emerge is that when the
right of an accused or a convict is violated on account of illegal or
arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its officials or on account
of their negligence, inaction, or arbitrary action, there has to be an
institutional accountability. One of the measures for redressing the
grievance for violation of a right would be to grant compensation.
At the same time, if any of the officers of the State has abused his
powers or acted in a totally arbitrary or mala fide manner, he cannot
be spared for such an illegal, arbitrary, mala fide exercise of power.

VI. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW: PRESUMPTION OF
INNOCENCE AND NATURAL JUSTICE.
63. The principle, that the criminal justice process is also to be in
accordance with the principle of the rule of law, is also very well
enshrined in the Constitution. The principle, that “an accused is not
guilty unless proven so in a court of law” is foundational to any legal
system. It reflects the presumption of innocence, which means that
every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law. This principle
ensures that individuals are not unfairly punished or stigmatized
based solely on accusations or suspicions.
64. The right to a fair trial is essential in upholding the rule of law and
protecting individual liberties. It ensures that the principles of natural
justice and fair process are being strictly followed. H.L.A. Hart
summarized the principle of natural justice as follows:
“It may be said that the distinction between a good legal
system which conforms at certain points to morality and

34 2019 INSC 305 : [2019] 4 SCR 709
772 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

justice, and a legal system which does not, is a fallacious
one, because a minimum of justice is necessarily realized
whenever human behaviour is controlled by general rules
publicly announced and judicially applied. Indeed we have
already pointed out,’ in analysing the idea of justice, that its
simplest form (justice in the application of the law) consists
in no more than taking seriously the notion that what is
to be applied to a multiplicity of different persons is the
same general rule, undeflected by prejudice, interest, or
caprice. This impartiality is what the procedural standards
known to English and American lawyers as principles of
‘Natural Justice’ are designed to secure. Hence, though
the most odious laws may be justly applied, we have, in
the bare notion of applying a general rule of law, the germ
at least of justice.”35
65. John Rawls defined the principle of natural justice in the following
words36:
“Finally, there are those precepts defining the notion of
natural justice. These are guidelines intended to preserve
the integrity of the judicial process. If laws are directives
addressed to rational persons for their guidance, courts
must be concerned to apply and to enforce these rules
in an appropriate way. A conscientious effort must be
made to determine whether an infraction has taken place
and to impose the correct penalty. Thus, a legal system
must make provisions for conducting orderly trials and
hearings; it must contain rules of evidence that guarantee
rational procedures of inquiry. While there are variations
in these procedures, the rule of law requires some form
of due process: that is, a process reasonably designed
to ascertain the truth, in ways consistent with the other
ends of the legal system, as to whether a violation has
taken place and under what circumstances. For example,
judges must be independent and impartial, and no man
may judge his own case. Trials must be fair and open, but

35 H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd Edn., 1994), p. 206
36 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, 1999).
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 773

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

not prejudiced by public clamor. The precepts of natural
justice are to insure that the legal order will be impartially
and regularly maintained.” 37
66. It is thus required that the trial must be fair and open, but not
prejudiced by public clamor. The precepts of natural justice are to
ensure that the legal order will be impartially and regularly maintained.
An accused cannot be declared guilty, unless proven so beyond
reasonable doubt before a court of law. They cannot be declared
guilty, unless there is a fair trial.
67. In this regard, it will be apposite to refer to the decision of this Court
in the case of Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others,38 where it was held:
“Failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused or
the prosecution violates even minimum standards of due
process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due process
of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after
the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a
mere farce and pretence. Since the fair hearing requires
an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated
and violated by an overhasty stage-managed, tailored
and partisan trial…
The fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in
technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but
also in recognition and just application of its principles in
substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage
of justice.”
68. It has been held by this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
v. Champalal Punjaji Shah,39 that the right to a fair and speedy trial
is enshrined under the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
69. The importance and purpose of the principles of natural justice have
been succinctly summed up by Lord Megarry in the case of John
v Rees40 as under:

37 Id. at 209-210.
38 [2008] 4 SCR 783 : AIR 2008 SC 1943
39 [1982] 1 SCR 299 : (1981) 3 SCC 610
40 (1970) Ch 345 at p. 402
774 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“It may be that there are some who would decry the
importance which the courts attach to the observance of
the rules of natural justice. ‘When something is obvious,’
they may say, ‘why force everybody to go through the
tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and
giving an opportunity to be heard? The result is obvious
from the start.’ Those who take this view do not, I think,
do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to
do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn
with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow,
were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event,
were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which
was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations
that, by discussion, suffered a change. Nor are those with
any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a
moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment
of those who find that a decision against them has been
made without their being afforded any opportunity to
influence the course of events.”
70. In the light of the aforesaid, we will have to consider the grievance
as sought to be espoused in the present Writ Petitions.
71. As discussed hereinabove, the rule of law, the rights of the citizens
guaranteed under the Constitution, and the principles of natural justice
would be essential requirements. 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, in
our considered view, it will be totally unconstitutional for more than
one reason. Firstly, the executive 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.
72. The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when
authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 775

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

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.
73. As we have already said, 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.
74. 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.
75. It is to be noted that 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 punishment of demolition of
his property/properties? The answer is an emphatic ‘No’.

VII. RIGHT TO SHELTER
76. There is another angle to this problem. It is not only the accused who
lives in such property or owns such property. If his spouse, children,
parents live in the same house or co-own the same property, can
they be penalized by demolishing the property without them even
being involved in any crime only on the basis of them being related
to an alleged accused person? What is their mistake if their relative
is arrayed as an accused in some complaint or F.I.R.? As is well
known, a pious father may have a recalcitrant son and vice versa.
776 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by
demolishing the house where they live in or properties owned by
them is nothing but an anarchy and would amount to a violation of
the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
77. This Court in the case of Chameli Singh and others v. State of
U.P. and another41 though was considering an issue in the context of
land acquisition, it had elaborately discussed on the right to shelter.
It will be apt to refer to the following observations of this Court:
“7. In State of Karnataka v. Narasimhamurthy [(1995) 5
SCC 524 : JT (1995) 6 SC 375] (SCC p. 526, para 7 : JT
at p. 378, para 7), this Court held that right to shelter is a
fundamental right under Article 19(1) of the Constitution.
To make the right meaningful to the poor, the State has
to provide facilities and opportunity to build houses.
Acquisition of the land to provide house sites to the poor
houseless is a public purpose as it is the constitutional
duty of the State to provide house sites to the poor.
8. In any organised society, right to live as a human
being is not ensured by meeting only the animal needs
of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all
facilities to develop himself and is freed from restrictions
which inhibit his growth. All human rights are designed
to achieve this object. Right to live guaranteed in any
civilised society implies the right to food, water, decent
environment, education, medical care and shelter. These
are basic human rights known to any civilised society. All
civil, political, social and cultural rights enshrined in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention or
under the Constitution of India cannot be exercised without
these basic human rights. Shelter for a human being,
therefore, is not a mere protection of his life and limb. It
is home where he has opportunities to grow physically,
mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter,
therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent
structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light,
pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic

41 [1995] Supp. 6 SCR 827 : (1996) 2 SCC 549
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 777

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

amenities like roads etc. so as to have easy access to
his daily avocation. The right to shelter, therefore, does
not mean a mere right to a roof over one›s head but right
to all the infrastructure necessary to enable them to live
and develop as a human being. Right to shelter when
used as an essential requisite to the right to live should
be deemed to have been guaranteed as a fundamental
right. As is enjoined in the Directive Principles, the State
should be deemed to be under an obligation to secure it
for its citizens, of course subject to its economic budgeting.
In a democratic society as a member of the organised
civic community one should have permanent shelter so
as to physically, mentally and intellectually equip oneself
to improve his excellence as a useful citizen as enjoined
in the Fundamental Duties and to be a useful citizen and
equal participant in democracy. The ultimate object of
making a man equipped with a right to dignity of person
and equality of status is to enable him to develop himself
into a cultured being. Want of decent residence, therefore,
frustrates the very object of the constitutional animation
of right to equality, economic justice, fundamental right to
residence, dignity of person and right to live itself. To bring
the Dalits and Tribes into the mainstream of national life,
providing these facilities and opportunities to them is the
duty of the State as fundamental to their basic human and
constitutional rights.”
78. The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such
innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their
heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional.
79. It was sought to be urged by the learned SG that most of the houses
which were demolished were demolished since the constructions were
found to be in breach of the local municipal laws. It was submitted
that the houses were demolished since they are found to be in
violation of either the provisions of municipal law governing them or
the Panchayat laws governing such construction.
80. The learned SG submitted that in some cases it may be by sheer
coincidence that the properties which were in breach of local municipal
laws governing them also happen to belong to accused persons. He,
778 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

however, reiterated that it was the stand of various States that such
properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law.
81. The position is disputed by the learned counsels appearing on behalf
of the petitioners/applicants. It is stated that the chain of events
clearly depicts that the demolition of the houses was an immediate
reflection of the persons being implicated in crimes. It was submitted
that the time gap between the person being named as an accused
and demolition of his property/properties made it apparent that the
punishment of demolition was inflicted by the executive on such
person being arrayed as an accused. It was also submitted that in
case of demolition of the property of an alleged accused, it is difficult
to believe that only a single construction belonging to an accused is
unauthorized construction, whereas all other structures in the vicinity
are legal and authorized as per local laws.
82. Though the learned SG may be right in submitting that in some cases it
may be by sheer coincidence that the properties which were in breach
of local municipal laws governing them also happen to belong to the
accused persons, however, when a particular structure is chosen all of
a sudden for demolition and the rest of the similarly situated structures
in the same vicinity are not even being touched, mala fide may loom
large. In such cases, where the authorities indulge into arbitrary pick
and choose of the structures and it is established that soon before
initiation of such an action an occupant of the structure was found
to be involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that
the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal
structure but an action of penalizing the accused without even trying
him before the court of law. No doubt, such a presumption could be
rebuttable. The authorities will have to satisfy the court that it did not
intend to penalize a person accused by demolishing the structure.
83. While considering the issue with regard to the demolition of the houses
which are required to be demolished for breach of the local laws, we
find that the principle of the rule of law needs to be considered even in
the municipal laws. There may be certain unauthorized constructions
which could be compoundable. There may be certain constructions
wherein only part of the construction is required to be removed. In
such cases, the extreme step of demolition of the property/house
property would, in our view, be disproportionate.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 779

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

84. As already discussed herein above, the right to shelter is one of
the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the persons are to be
dishoused, then for taking such steps the concerned authorities
must satisfy themselves that such an extreme step of demolition
is only available and other options including compounding and
demolition of only part of the house property are not available. This
Court in catena of cases including the Constitution Bench cases
of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others,42 K.S. Puttaswamy and
another v. Union of India and others43 (Privacy 9-J) and Vivek
Narayan Sharma and others v. Union of India and others44
(Demonetization Case-5J) has laid emphasis on the four-pronged
test of proportionality.
85. In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and
others (supra), this Court observed thus:
“60. …….Thus, while examining as to whether the
impugned provisions of the statute and rules amount
to reasonable restrictions and are brought out in the
interest of the general public, the exercise that is required
to be undertaken is the balancing of fundamental
right to carry on occupation on the one hand and the
restrictions imposed on the other hand. This is what is
known as “doctrine of proportionality”. Jurisprudentially,
“proportionality” can be defined as the set of rules
determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for
limitation of a constitutionally protected right by a law
to be constitutionally permissible. According to Aharon
Barak (former Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Israel),
there are four sub-components of proportionality which
need to be satisfied [ Aharon Barak, Proportionality:
Constitutional Rights and Their Limitation (Cambridge
University Press 2012).] , a limitation of a constitutional
right will be constitutionally permissible if:

42 [2016] 3 SCR 575 : (2016) 7 SCC 353
43 [2017] 10 SCR 569 : (2017) 10 SCC 1
44 [2023] 1 SCR 1 : (2023) 3 SCC 1
780 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

(i) it is designated for a proper purpose;
(ii) the measures undertaken to effectuate such a
limitation are rationally connected to the fulfilment
of that purpose;
(iii) the measures undertaken are necessary in that
there are no alternative measures that may similarly
achieve that same purpose with a lesser degree of
limitation; and finally
(iv) there needs to be a proper relation (“proportionality
stricto sensu” or “balancing”) between the importance
of achieving the proper purpose and the social
importance of preventing the limitation on the
constitutional right.”
86. It is also to be noted that the construction of a house has an aspect
of socio-economic rights. For an average citizen, the construction of
a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams, and
aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective
hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future.
Having a house or a roof over one’s head gives satisfaction to any
person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this
is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is
the only option available.

VIII. PERMISSIBILITY OF THE COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT
87. Right to life is a fundamental right. As already discussed herein
above, with the expanded scope of law, the right to shelter has
also been considered as one of the facets of Article 21 of the
Constitution. In one structure, various people or maybe even a few
families could reside. The question that is required to be considered
is, as to whether if only one of the residents of such a structure is an
accused or convicted in a crime, could the authorities be permitted
to demolish the entire structure thereby removing the shelter from
the heads of the persons who are not directly or indirectly related
with the commission of crime.
88. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as recognized in
our country that a person is presumed to be innocent till he is held
guilty. In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 781

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the
ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused
or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective
punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such
structure. In our considered view, our constitutional scheme and the
criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same.
89. In this respect, it will be apposite to refer to the following observations
of Justice Krishna Iyer in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and
others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others45:
“111. The cardinal distinction in our punitive jurisprudence
between a commission of enquiry and a court of
adjudication, between the cumulative causes of a calamity
and the specific guilt of a particular person, is that speaking
generally, we have rejected, as a nation, the theory of
community guilt and collective punishment and instead
that no man shall be punished except for his own guilt.
Its reflection in the disciplinary jurisdiction is that no
worker shall be dismissed save on proof of his individual
delinquency. Blanket attainder of a bulk of citizens on any
vicarious theory for the gross sins of some only, is easy
to apply but obnoxious in principle.”

IX. DIRECTIONS
90. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to
arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we
find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power
under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that
even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs
to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition
before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in
cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order,
sufficient time needs to be given to them to vacate and arrange
their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged
persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on
the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.

45 [1980] 2 SCR 146 : (1980) 2 SCC 593
782 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if
there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road,
street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies
and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by
a Court of law.

A. NOTICE
i. No demolition should be carried out without a prior
show cause notice returnable either in accordance with
the time provided by the local municipal laws or within
15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice,
whichever is later.
ii. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a
registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be
affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure
in question.
iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start from
the date of receipt of the said notice.
iv. To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct that as
soon as the show cause notice is duly served, intimation
thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District
Magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto
generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail should
also be issued from the office of the Collector/District
Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall designate a nodal officer
and also assign an email address and communicate the
same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge
of building regulations and demolition within one month
from today.
v. The notice shall contain the details regarding:
a. the nature of the unauthorized construction.
b. the details of the specific violation and the grounds
of demolition.
c. a list of documents that the noticee is required to
furnish along with his reply.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 783

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

d. The notice should also specify the date on which the
personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority
before whom the hearing will take place;
vi. Every municipal/local authority shall assign a designated
digital portal, within 3 months from today wherein details
regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, the
show cause notice and the order passed thereon would
be available.

B. PERSONAL HEARING
i. The designated authority shall give an opportunity of
personal hearing to the person concerned.
ii. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded.

C. FINAL ORDER
i. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final
order.
ii. The final order shall contain:
a. the contentions of the noticee, and if the designated
authority disagrees with the same, the reasons
thereof;
b. as to whether the unauthorized construction is
compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor;
c. if the designated authority finds that only part of the
construction is unauthorized/non-compoundable, then
the details thereof.
d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only
option available and other options like compounding
and demolishing only part of the property are not
available.

D. AN OPPORTUNITY OF APPELLATE AND JUDICIAL
SCRUTINY OF THE FINAL ORDER.
i. We further direct that if the statute provides for an
appellate opportunity and time for filing the same, or
784 [2024] 11 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

even if it does not so, the order will not be implemented
for a period of 15 days from the date of receipt thereof.
The order shall also be displayed on the digital portal
as stated above.
ii. An opportunity should be given to the owner/occupier to
remove the unauthorized construction or demolish the
same within a period of 15 days. 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. It is only
such construction which is found to be unauthorized and
not compoundable shall be demolished.
iii. Before demolition, a detailed inspection report shall
be prepared by the concerned authority signed by two
Panchas.

E. PROCEEDINGS OF DEMOLITION
i. The proceedings of demolition shall be video-graphed, and
the concerned authority shall prepare a demolition report
giving the list of police officials and civil personnel that
participated in the demolition process. Video recording to
be duly preserved.
ii. The said demolition report should be forwarded to the
Municipal Commissioner by email and shall also be
displayed on the digital portal.
92. Needless to state that the authorities hereinafter shall strictly comply
with the aforesaid directions issued by us.
93. It will also be informed that violation of any of the directions
would lead to initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the
prosecution.
94. The officials should also be informed that if the demolition is found to
be in violation of the orders of this Court, the officer/officers concerned
will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at
his/their personal cost in addition to payment of damages.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 785

In Re: Directions in The Matter of Demolition of Structures

95. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment
to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories and the
Registrar Generals of all the High Courts. All State Governments
shall issue circulars to all the District Magistrates and local authorities
intimating them about the directions issued by this Court.
96. Before we part with the judgment, we must place on record our
appreciation for the valuable assistance and suggestions given by Shri
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Shri M.R. Shamshad, Shri Sanjay Hegde,
Shri C.U. Singh, Smt. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel,
and Shri Prashant Bhushan, Shri Mohd. Nizammudin Pasha, Smt.
Fauzia Shakil and Smt. Rashmi Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners/applicants.
97. We also make a special mention of the pain-staking efforts made
by Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned Senior Counsel in collating the
suggestions given by all the different counsel.
98. We must place on record our appreciation for Shri Tushar Mehta,
learned Solicitor General of India, who has presented the case in
an objective and dispassionate manner in keeping with the traditions
of his high office.
99. Post the writ petitions for further orders after four weeks.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose