The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on a series of petitions, addressed the legality of property demolitions linked to individuals accused of criminal activities. These petitions challenged the arbitrary demolition of properties owned by people facing criminal charges, arguing that such actions were punitive and did not follow due process. In response, the Supreme Court delivered a firm verdict, underscoring that executive authorities overstepping their role to act as both judge and enforcer violates the fundamental principles of the rule of law.

In its judgment, the Court stated that demolitions carried out by executive bodies without due legal procedure are unconstitutional. It is essential, the Court emphasized, that government authorities respect the legal rights of individuals, including those accused of crimes, and cannot take actions that bypass established legal processes. The judiciary’s core functions—ensuring fair adjudication and safeguarding individual rights—cannot be replaced or overridden by executive decisions.

The Supreme Court issued nationwide guidelines to curb these arbitrary demolitions, which often involve the use of bulldozers to raze properties. According to the new directives, authorities must demonstrate that demolition is the only viable recourse, even in cases where minor encroachments exist. Additionally, the Court mandated a strict 15-day notice period before any demolition can proceed, ensuring affected parties have time to respond and seek legal recourse if needed. Compliance with statutory guidelines for property demolition is now required, setting a clear legal framework for the process.

The Court’s decision also addressed the broader implications of arbitrary actions by the state. It underscored that the rule of law acts as a safeguard against arbitrary actions and warned that ignoring due process can foster an environment of lawlessness. Legal standards exist to protect both the rights of individuals and the stability of society, the Court asserted, and these standards cannot be disregarded without eroding public trust in the justice system. Violating these principles would set a dangerous precedent, compromising the democratic structure by allowing unchecked state power.

The ruling reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding civil rights, which it described as foundational to a functioning constitutional democracy. Civil rights protections, the Court noted, are not only for the innocent but also extend to those accused or convicted of crimes, as such protections maintain fairness, accountability, and justice within the system. By reinforcing the need for due process, the Supreme Court’s decision aims to ensure that all actions by the state are transparent, justified, and accountable to the rule of law.