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

Supreme Court Restores 3-Year Advocacy Experience Requirement for Judicial Service Entry

In All India Judges Association v. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court, led by CJI BR Gavai, mandated a minimum of 3 years’ advocacy practice for candidates seeking entry-level judicial posts, restoring the pre-2002 requirement. The Court held that first-hand courtroom experience is crucial for judicial competence and cannot be replaced by academic knowledge... Read more » Read more »

Saroj & Ors. Vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. (2024 INSC 816)

In Saroj & Ors. v. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. & Ors. (2024 INSC 816), the Supreme Court clarified that the Aadhar card should only be treated as proof of identity and not as definitive proof of date of birth. This decision emerged in the context of determining compensation in a motor vehicle accident claim. Citing... Read more » Read more »

A Life Beyond the Contract

An arbitration agreement is the lifeblood of arbitration. Whether it takes the form of a standalone document or a clause embedded within a contract, the existence of an arbitration agreement is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating arbitration. But what happens when the contract containing the arbitral clause/agreement is terminated... 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.