Supreme Court allows Bulldozer Action: The Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 17, 2024) directed the authorities in the country not to demolish the property of the accused in criminal cases without its permission. The court said that if there is even a single case of illegal demolition, it is against the values of our Constitution. While hearing the case, the court also said that those who drive the bulldozers should not consider themselves judges.
Table of Contents
Clarification on Illegal Constructions
A bench comprising Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan made it clear that while no blanket protection would be offered to illegal structures, the court’s temporary order halting demolitions would not apply to public roads and footpaths. “If there is even a single example of illegal demolition, then it is against the values of our Constitution,” the bench remarked, underlining the importance of following the rule of law.
This decision was made in the context of petitions filed by several groups, including the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, alleging that properties of criminally accused individuals were being unfairly targeted for demolition in some states. The court’s next hearing on the matter has been scheduled for October 1, with the bench signaling that it will make further determinations at that time. In the interim, the court has ensured that no demolition will proceed without its permission.
Allegations of Community Targeting in Demolitions
The hearing also brought to light concerns about the use of demolition as a punitive measure against specific communities. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state of Uttar Pradesh, vehemently opposed these claims, stating that a “narrative” was being built that bulldozer action was being used to target a particular community. He stressed that demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, and other states, were purely based on violations of municipal laws and had nothing to do with the religious or communal identities of the property owners.
The bench, while acknowledging these claims, assured Mehta that external pressures or public narratives would not influence the court’s decision-making process. “You rest assured, external voices cannot influence us,” Justice Gavai told Mehta. Despite the Solicitor General’s objections, the court reiterated that it would consider all facts and arguments presented during the next hearing before issuing a final ruling.
Temporary Halt to Demolitions Amid Legal Review
One of the most crucial aspects of the Supreme Court’s ruling is the temporary suspension of demolition activities until October 1. Justice Gavai, responding to concerns raised by the Solicitor General, remarked that halting demolitions for a few days would not lead to a collapse of governance or create irreversible consequences. “If there is no demolition for 15 days, the sky will not fall,” Justice Gavai noted.
Solicitor General Mehta, however, expressed strong reservations about the suspension of demolitions, arguing that it would tie the hands of the administration. He emphasized that state authorities must retain the ability to act swiftly against unauthorized constructions, particularly when these encroach on public land. The court, however, stressed that its order was passed using special powers granted under Article 142 of the Constitution, which enables the court to issue directives in the interest of justice.
The bench, mindful of the broader legal implications of such demolitions, also highlighted the need to strike a balance between administrative authority and individual rights. It warned that while demolishing illegal constructions was necessary, authorities must not act as “judges” in determining the guilt or innocence of the property owners. This statement was a clear warning to state officials that due process must be followed at all times.
Future Guidelines and the Need for Legal Process
During the September 2 hearing, the Supreme Court had indicated its intention to draft guidelines that would govern demolition actions nationwide. These guidelines would ensure that demolitions are conducted in accordance with the law and that no individual’s property is destroyed without following the proper legal procedures.
The bench questioned how someone’s property could be demolished simply because they were accused of a crime, pointing out that such actions violated the principles of justice. “How can someone’s house be demolished just because he is an accused? Even if he is guilty, this cannot be done without following the procedure prescribed by law,” the court stated.
Solicitor General Mehta, representing the state of Uttar Pradesh, echoed this sentiment, clarifying that under no circumstances would a person’s property be demolished solely on the basis of a criminal accusation. Instead, any demolition must be carried out in accordance with municipal laws or the regulations governing local development authorities.
The petitions under review by the Supreme Court, particularly from organizations like Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, have brought these issues to the forefront. The Muslim organization had earlier sought protection from demolitions in areas like Jahangirpuri, Delhi, and Uttar Pradesh, where properties of those accused of involvement in riots and violence were being targeted. The petitioners have argued that demolitions should not be used as a tool of collective punishment, particularly without following due process.
Also Read:
