Sujit De
How can an authorised structure, a home of a person, be demolished by the administration to punish an accused or a convict? It is said that a person is innocent until proven guilty. So, no punitive action should be taken against an accused until the person is proven guilty.
Now, what if the person is a convict? Even in this case, the executive cannot add more punishment to what was given by the judiciary. Moreover, can a wife be punished for the crime committed by her husband? Should the administration destroy the future of innocent children by destroying their homes if their father is a criminal? Rather, it is the duty of the state to protect the innocent family members of a convict.
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has directed that the government cannot punish an accused or a convict by demolishing their property without serving a prior show cause notice and giving the affected party 15 days to challenge the order.
The apex court clarified that the directions would not apply to unauthorised structures in public places such as “roads, streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law”.
That means the Supreme Court zeroes in on the demolition of houses that are not unauthorised structures. Therefore, the judgment has rightly put a break on the executive to bulldoze the separation of power. However, it would have been better if there was a total ban on such demolition instead of restricting it by attaching some strings.
Justice Gavai rightly said, “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… 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.” Now, those who have lost their homes because of such a transgression should be given fair compensation.
It will indeed be a mockery of justice if the executive blurs the line of the separation of power and assumes the role of the judiciary for the sake of instant justice.
In the book, 'Alice in Wonderland', Lewis Carroll beautifully described it through the mouth of a mouse. The mouse narrated how a cur called Fury, serving as judge and jury, condemned it to death.
Let us recall the nonsense trial in the poem, ‘The Mouse’s Tale’, ‘Fury said to a mouse that he met in the house, “Let us both go to law: I will prosecute you. Come, I'll take no denial: we must have a trial: for really this morning I've nothing to do.”
Said the mouse to the cur, “Such a trial, dear sir, with no jury or judge, would be wasting our breath.”
“I'll be judge, I'll be jury,” said cunning old Fury: “I'll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.”
There is no water in the argument of the cur called Fury. How can “I'll take no denial” of an accused and “We must have a trial” exist simultaneously?
The Supreme Court has rightly said that a bulldozer demolishing a building made a “chilling sight” and it is a “lawless state of affairs”. There should not be any leeway for such actions.
An innocent family member of an accused or a convict should not be deprived of her or his right to shelter, which is a fundamental right and a part of Article 21 (life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.