E-Paper
No bulldozer demolitions without court nod till Oct 1, says SC
The bench said that it would issue directives to streamline demolition actions and prevent any undue harm or prejudice while ensuring that legal and procedural safeguards are adhered to sc said ‘heavens will not fall’ if authorities across states stayed their hands against demolitions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday imposed a nationwide restraint on demolition activities, ruling that no demolition, including of those accused or convicted of crime, should occur without the court’s explicit permission, expressing concern over the indiscriminate demolition actions and highlighting the need for judicial oversight.
Even as the directive by a bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan included a caveat that the restraining order will not apply to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines or water bodies, the top court was emphatic that “heavens will not fall” if the authorities across the nation stayed their hands against hasty demolitions for the time being.
“We direct that till the next date of hearing, there will be no demolition without taking leave of this court. However, such protection would not be applicable for unauthorised constructions on public streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines, water bodies or public spaces,” ordered the bench, setting down the matter for October 1.
Highlighting the need to balance the need for law enforcement with the protection of constitutional rights, the bench said that it would issue directives to streamline demolition actions and prevent any undue harm or prejudice while ensuring that legal and procedural safeguards are adhered to.
“We are not going to issue guidelines, but we will be issuing directives. We will streamline the procedure. We are not on community A or B, or any narrative in so far as directions are concerned. Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition irrespective of the religion, it is against the ethos of the Constitution,” the bench told solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Centre and state of Uttar Pradesh in the matter.
The court order came in response to a batch of petitions challenging the recent surge in demolitions targeting properties linked to individuals accused of crimes. This directive has come four days after another bench in the Supreme Court said that the growing trend of demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes, often targeting their families too and executed via bulldozers, is “inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme, adding that if not checked, this pernicious practice “may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.” On September 2, the justice Gavai-led bench had initiated steps towards issuing pan-Indian guidelines on demolitions, noting that demolishing homes of accused persons without following legal procedures violates fundamental rights and due process.
These directives and observations by the highest court of the land reflect growing judicial response to the rising trend of “bulldozer justice” – the practice of demolishing the properties of people accused of crimes, and, sometimes, of their families, often using earthmovers or bulldozers, without following due process.
On Tuesday, senior counsel CU Singh and MR Shamshad, appearing for petitioners including Jamiat Ulama I Hind, pointed out that demolitions were taking place daily, sometimes even on the same day as alleged incidents of unrest. Both counsel urged the court for a prompt hearing.
SG Mehta, however, defended the actions taken by authorities, asserting that notices for demolition were issued in 2022 and subsequent actions were based on those notices. Mehta also refuted claims of targeted demolitions against specific communities, emphasising that the demolitions followed procedural norms.
But the bench also took a grim view of the “grandstanding” and “glorification” of using bulldozers to raze properties, pointing out there have been statements from some political executives that bulldozers will not stop and that it all depends on who has the steering. The court was apparently referring to a statement made by Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath on September 4 in response to a criticism by Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav over the use of bulldozers against the properties of accused individuals.
“We don’t usually take notice of the newspaper reports but even after our order on September 2, there were statements that bulldozers will continue, and it all depends on who has the steering... there has been glorification and grandstanding. The question is - should this happen in our country? We can even ask the Election Commission of India to look into it if it can be allowed, at all,” said the bench.
While Mehta contended that a “narrative” was being built that a particular community was being targeted and that the same narrative has appealed to the court, the bench clarified that it was not influenced by the “outside noises” but was moved by the fact that demolition actions ought to pass the judicial muster and that no property can be brought down for “extraneous reasons”.
“We have already made it clear that we will not come between demolition and unauthorised constructions...But the executive can’t be judge...We have steered clear of all religion-specific instances. We are on directives that will apply across the board,” it told Mehta.
The bench clarified that the court’s order would be in the form of directives rather than guidelines as it directed that the restraint on demolitions would be in place until the matter is reviewed again on October 1.
During the hearing of this matter on September 2, the bench had proposed to formulate a uniform legal framework to prevent such arbitrary actions. Stressing that even in cases of illegal constructions, demolitions must adhere to proper legal protocols, the bench had sought suggestions from various stakeholders on formulating comprehensive regulations, while reiterating that no individual’s property should be destroyed solely due to their or a family member’s alleged involvement in criminal activities.
Subsequently, another bench led by justice Hrishikesh Roy had on September 12 condemned the practice of demolishing the properties of people accused of crimes as it heard a case concerning the attempted demolition of an ancestral house in Gujarat’s Kheda district because of the alleged involvement of a family member in a criminal incident.
It restrained the authorities from carrying out any demolition and noted in its order: “Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a court of law.”
