Bulldozer Justice Simply Unnacceptable – Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their homes.

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Bulldozer Justice Simply...

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating a Suo Moto Writ Petition captioned “In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash, 2024 INSC 863”(registered on the basis of a letter by a senior journalist) held that the state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures and issued a slew of directions to be followed before pursuing a road widening project. The demolition of the petitioner’s ancestral house in the present case was done without giving any proper notice and only through the public announcement of drum-beating. The Hon’ble Court observed that such conduct of the state authorities was “completely high-handed and without the authority of law” which warranted an interim punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the petitioner while also granting him liberty to exercise other legal remedies for compensation.The Hon’ble Court came down heavily upon the State by holding that Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law and will reduce the constitutional right to property under Article 300A to a dead letter.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Acquittal in Murder Based on Inconclusive Circumstantial Evidence

In Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 800), the Supreme Court acquitted a medical student of murder, finding no complete chain of circumstantial evidence to prove he fired the fatal shot. Suspicious acts like hiding clothes and cleaning the scene supported conviction under Section 201 IPC but not under Read more »

Ambience Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Ambience Island Apartment Owners, (2021) 2 SCC 163

The Supreme Court held that the execution proceedings and original proceedings are separate and independent. An appeal under S. 23 of the Consumer Protection Act will not lie to Supreme Court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. An appeal under S. 23 is Read more »

Arbitrability of Claims Cannot Be Decided at Section 11 Stage

In Office for Alternative Architecture v. Ircon Infrastructure And Services Ltd., 2025 INSC 665, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside an order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court order which had excluded certain claims as non-arbitrable in view of “excepted matters” clauses in the contract, while appointing an arbitral tribunal Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.