The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on ‘bulldozer justice’, questioning how a house can be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case.
The court was hearing a petition challenging bulldozer action against accused individuals in various cases. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said it will put out pan-India guidelines to address concerns regarding the demolition of houses and buildings.
“How can house be demolished just because he is accused? Can’t be demolished even if he is convicted. Even after telling SC Bar is … we don’t find any change in attitude,” Justice Gavai remarked while hearing a plea filed by the Muslim scholars’ body, Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind.
Also Read: ‘Minorities targeted in BJP-ruled states deeply troubling’: Congress slams bulldozer action in MP
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave sought a direction from the court to ensure that ‘bulldozer justice’ is not meted out across the country.
Addressing the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that immovable property cannot be demolished just because the accused is involved in a criminal offence. “Such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal,” Mehta said. The Solicitor General, however, argued that the matter was being misrepresented before the court.
In response, the bench said, “If construction is unauthorised, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will lay down a procedure. You are saying demolition only if violation of municipal laws. There is a need for guidelines, it needs to be documented.”
Justice Viswanathan asked why directions cannot be passed to avoid such cases. “First issue notice, give time to answer, time to seek legal remedies, and then demolition,” he said.
Also Read: Ujjain: Bulldozer action on ‘illegal’ homes of accused who spat on Mahakal procession
The bench stressed that it is not defending illegal construction. “We will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads, that includes a temple, but there should be guidelines for demolition,” it said.
Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and CU Singh, appearing for the petitioners, pointed to the demolition exercise in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. The lawyers said that in some cases property rented out was demolished. “They demolished 50-60 year old homes because son or tenant of the owner is involved,” Singh said.
Senior advocate Chander Uday Singh referred to a case in Udaipur where a person’s house was demolished because the tenant’s son was accused of a crime.
Justice Viswanathan, who mentioned that “nobody should take advantage of lacunas”, observed that a “father may have a recalcitrant son, but if house is demolished on this ground…this is not the way to go about it”.
The Supreme Court will continue hearing the matter on September 17.
The top court is dealing with multiple cases related to the practice of using bulldozers to demolish properties allegedly linked to individuals involved in criminal activities. This, often termed “bulldozer justice,” has also been a subject of significant controversy.