The Supreme Court on November 13, 2024 emphasised that demolishing buildings by authorities without observing fundamental principles of natural justice and due process creates a lawless state where “might is right.” The apex court, with a bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice K V Viswanathan, stated that demolishing a citizen’s home simply because they are an accused or even a convict, without following the due legal process, is entirely unconstitutional.
The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property / properties of such 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 SC said.
“The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential or commercial properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits,” the judgment said.
The Right to Shelter, a facet of Article 21, must be protected. Depriving individuals of shelter without due process infringes upon their fundamental right to life, the court stated. Even after a demolition order is issued, affected individuals should be allowed time to challenge it before an appropriate forum. Else, if they do not wish to contest, they must be given enough time to vacate and make necessary arrangements.
The court ordered all municipal and local authorities to establish designated digital portals within three months from the date of the judgment, displaying details of notices, responses, show-cause notices and final orders.
The SC warned that in case of any demolition contravening orders, “the officer/officers concerned will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at his/their personal cost in addition to payment of damages”.
The directions, however, do not apply to unauthorised structures on public land, roads, or near water bodies, nor to court-ordered demolitions.
This matter raised the constitutional question of whether the executive can deprive a family of shelter as a penalty for a crime accusation.
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) November 11, 2024 heard an application challenging the validity of the CRZ Notification 2019, seeking to have the notification declared ultra vires or specific provisions deemed arbitrary and illegal. The hearing was presided over by a larger bench following an October 2024 order by a two-member western zonal bench.
Only the states of Maharashtra and Goa, along with their Coastal Zone Management Authorities (CZMA), were initially involved in the application. Given the notification’s impact across all coastal states and authorities, the NGT considered whether these states and bodies should be included in the case.
Counsel for the applicant argued that only the central government needed to be a party to the matter. However, counsel for the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) asserted that all affected states and Union Territories should have a chance to be heard, as the notification has nationwide implications.
Akash Rebello, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the impugned notification has been issued by the central government. Therefore, in deciding the issue of the notification’s validity, only the central government is a necessary party, and the concerned states and their authorities need not be impleaded. He argued that their inclusion would delay adjudication of the issue.
Swati Jindal Garg, counsel for MoEF&CC, submitted that the outcome of these original applications, which decide the validity of the CRZ Notification, 2019, will have a pan-India effect. Therefore, states and Union Territories likely to be affected by the outcome should be given an opportunity to be heard.
After hearing the counsel for both parties and reviewing the record, the court noted that the CRZ Notification, 2019, applies to coastal states such as Maharashtra, Goa, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Odisha, as well as Union Territories (UTs) like Puducherry, Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep, and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
The court was informed that, under the provisions of the impugned notification, Coastal Zone Management Plans (CZMP) for some states and Union Territories have already been prepared and approved by MoEF&CC, including Odisha, Maharashtra (Mumbai and Mumbai Suburban districts), Karnataka, and the ICRZ Plan for the Andaman Islands.
According to the pleadings in the case, the CZMP for Mumbai city and Mumbai Suburban district was published on September 29, 2021 and has since come into effect. Authorities in other regions have acted upon CZMPs based on the provisions of the CRZ Notification, 2019. It was further noted that Karnataka’s CZMP is under challenge in two other cases before the Southern Bench of the NGT.
“It is not a case where the Tribunal is deciding the challenge to CRZ Notification 2019 at the stage when no action in pursuance to the said Notification was taken, but after issuance of impugned CRZ Notification, more than five years have passed,” the order said.
To comply with the principles of natural justice and ensure a complete, effective, and proper adjudication of these applications, it is necessary to implead the Coastal States/Union Territories and State Zonal Authorities likely to be affected by the outcome of this litigation, the court added.
The NGT directed that coastal zone management authorities from Goa, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, West Bengal, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Lakshadweep, Puducherry, Andaman & Nicobar, as well as the secretary for Union Ministry of Earth Sciences, and the secretary for Island Development Authority, be impleaded.
All newly added respondents were instructed to file their responses by affidavit before the next hearing on December 19, 2024.
The eastern bench of the NGT, on November 12, 2024, directed the constitution of a committee to conduct a fact-finding enquiry into allegations of pollution caused by factories and workshops in Purbannapara village, Howrah district, West Bengal. The committee is to inspect the site in question and submit its report within four weeks.
The NGT also directed that notices be issued to the district magistrate of Howrah, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Department of Environment, West Bengal, and the Central Pollution Control Board. All respondents have been directed to file their counter-affidavits.
The matter concerns pollution caused by factories and workshops in Purbannapara, Makardah Mouza, Domjur Block, Howrah district. The Saraswati Canal has been blocked due to the dumping of wastewater and other industrial waste materials by numerous industries, resulting in environmental degradation through unregulated industrial waste disposal.