Context
During July–September 2025, authorities in states such as Assam and Uttar Pradesh reportedly carried out punitive property demolitions and evictions, often immediately after incidents of alleged violence or unrest.
Although officially justified as action against illegal constructions, these demolitions raised grave ethical and constitutional concerns because they were:
-
- Swift and retaliatory in timing,
- Disproportionately directed at Muslim neighbourhoods, and
- Executed without effective notice, hearing, or opportunity to appeal,
despite clear jurisprudence and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
The issue therefore squarely implicates constitutional morality, rule of law, and ethics of state power.
I. Constitutional and Legal Framework
1. Article 14 – Equality Before Law: Selective or targeted demolitions violate the principle of non-arbitrariness, which the Supreme Court has read as the core of Article 14.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): “Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment.”
2. Article 21 – Right to Life and Dignity:
-
- Right to shelter,
- Right to dignity,
- Right to livelihood.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): “The right to life includes the right to livelihood. No person can live without the means of living.”
3. Article 300A – Right to Property: Although no longer a fundamental right, property remains a constitutional right.
K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka (2011): “A law depriving a person of property must be just, fair and reasonable.”
II. Due Process as a Constitutional and Ethical Mandate
Notice, Hearing, and Proportionality: The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that due process is integral to constitutional governance, even where the State acts under statutory powers.
Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003): “Notice is the first limb of the principle of audi alteram partem.”
Demolitions carried out:
-
- Immediately after alleged offences,
- Without effective hearing,
- Without reasoned orders,
are ethically coercive and constitutionally suspect, even if nominally legal.
III. Collective Punishment: Ethical and Legal Prohibition
Punitive demolitions often:
-
- Affect entire families,
- Displace women, children, and elderly,
- Punish persons not accused of any wrongdoing.
Supreme Court on collective responsibility (indirect principle): While not in demolition cases specifically, the Court has consistently rejected collective penalties in criminal jurisprudence.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer (extra-judicial reflection): “Law is not a weapon for collective vengeance; it is an instrument of individual justice.”
Ethically, punishing innocents to deter others treats human beings as means, not ends.
IV. Rule of Law vs Rule by Law
| Rule of Law | Rule by Law |
|---|---|
| • Law restrains power, • Protects rights, • Applies equally. |
• Law is used as a tool of domination, • Selective and retaliatory enforcement, • Legal form without moral legitimacy. |
State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012): “Rule of law means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles, not by arbitrariness.”
When demolition laws are selectively activated after communal incidents, law becomes an instrument of punishment, not governance.
V. Proportionality: A Constitutional Requirement
Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016)
The Supreme Court formally adopted the doctrine of proportionality, requiring:
1. Legitimate aim,
2. Rational connection,
3. Necessity,
4. Balancing of rights and interests.
Demolishing an entire home for alleged wrongdoing fails the least-restrictive means test and is therefore ethically and constitutionally disproportionate.
VI. Constitutional Morality and State Restraint
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): “Constitutional morality requires the State to respect the dignity of every individual.”
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: “The Constitution is not a mere legal document; it is a moral charter.”
VII. Broader Ethical Consequences
1. Erosion of Public Trust
Citizens perceive law as punitive, not protective.
2. Normalisation of Executive Excess
Exceptional measures become routine governance tools.
3. Deepening Social Exclusion
Marginalised communities experience the state as adversarial.
4. Chilling Effect on Dissent
Fear replaces democratic participation.
Way Forward: Ethical–Legal Correctives
1. Codified Due Process: Minimum notice period, Mandatory hearing, and Reasoned orders.
2. Independent Oversight: Judicial or tribunal approval before demolition in sensitive cases.
3. Proportional and Individualised Action: Target only proven illegal structures and No collective or retaliatory action.
4. Equality in Enforcement: Uniform application across communities and Public disclosure of enforcement criteria.
5. Ethical Training: Emphasis on constitutional morality for administrators and police.
Conclusion
Punitive demolitions are not merely an urban-governance issue; they represent a fundamental ethical stress test of constitutional democracy. A state committed to the rule of law must demonstrate restraint, fairness, and respect for dignity, even when confronting illegality.
“The strength of a constitutional state lies not in how harshly it can punish, but in how firmly it can restrain itself.”
Spread the Word
The post Punitive Demolitions and the Ethics of Due Process appeared first on Lukmaan IAS.