Executive Can't Become Judge, Pronounce Guilt Of Persons & Punish Them By Demolishing Their Properties : Supreme Court

Pronouncing judgment in the 'bulldozer matter', the Supreme Court today stated in unequivocal terms that the executive demolishing house of an accused without following due process of law would constitute an 'abuse of power'. If it takes such arbitrary action, the executive would be guilty of giving a go-by to principles of law and acting in a high-handed manner, which would have to be dealt with a 'heavy hand of the law'."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 due process, reminds one of state of affairs wherein might was right. In our Constitution, which rests on the foundation of Rule of Law, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive would have to be dealt with a heavy hand of the law. Our Constitutional ethos and values do not permit any such abuse of power and such disadvantages cannot be tolerated by the Court of law", said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.It further added:"Having already said that such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offense, even in the case of such person, the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process prescribed by law. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and amount to abuse of process of law. Executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in its hands and giving a go-by to the principles of law."Addressing the principle of separation of powers, the Court was emphatic that the judiciary and the executive operate in separate spheres. By demolishing house of a person merely because he is an accused, who has not undergone trial, the executive would be transcending the limits of its powers and taking over adjudicatory functions entrusted to the judiciary. "Only on the basis of accusations, it the executive demolishes property of 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 or commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transcending its limits.""The executive wing and the judicial wing of the Constitution perform their functions in their respective spheres...the aforesaid decisions 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 functions, and without a person undergoing a trial, be inflicted with a punishment of demolition of his property? In our view, such a situation would be wholly impermissible in our Constitutional setup. The executive cannot replace the judiciary in performing its core functions."On Rule of lawThe judgment highlighted the importance of protecting the rule of law, stating : "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."When the executive acts in breach of the principles of 'rule of law' and 'separation of powers', the doctrine of public trust and accountability would come into play, the Court said."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'. 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."Rights of the accused The judgment also discussed the rights guaranteed to an accused under the Constitution, including the right to fair trial. It stated that they have right to dignity and cannot be subjected to any cruel or inhumane treatment. The punishment awarded to accused persons has to be in accordance with law and it cannot be inhumane or cruel."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."The principle, that “an accused is not guilty unless proven so in a court of...

Executive Can't Become Judge, Pronounce Guilt Of Persons & Punish Them By Demolishing Their Properties : Supreme Court

Debby Jain

Tags