Bulldozer Actions | 'Will Clarify Demolition Can't Be Done Merely Because Someone Is Accused/Convict' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 1) reserved judgment on petitions against the demolition of houses of persons as a punitive measure, a practice popularly referred to as 'bulldozer justice' or 'bulldozer actions.'A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan elaborately heard the parties on the guidelines which can be issued to ensure that the local laws providing for the demolition of unauthorised constructions are not misused and that due process is followed.The bench said that it would clarify that demolitions cannot be carried out merely because somebody is an accused or a convict in a crime. At the same time, the bench stated that it would ensure that unauthorized constructions and public encroachments are not protected.The bench stated that it would issue "pan-India guidelines", which would apply to everyone equally, regardless of their community."Whatever directions we issue will be for pan India and apply to all equally. We are a secular country," Justice Gavai said.On September 17, the Court had passed an interim order that no demolition should be carried out without obtaining its prior permission. However, this order was not applicable to encroachments in public spaces. Earlier, the Court had expressed the intention to lay down pan-India guidelines and allowed the parties to give their suggestions. Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi compiled the draft suggestions submitted by various parties and presented them to the Court.The bench was primarily dealing with two petitions filed by Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind, raising the issue of state governments demolishing houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure.Law against unauthorised constructions must apply to everyone equally : CourtThe Court said that when certain unauthorised constructions are selectively demolished and it is found that the owner was facing an accusation in a criminal case, it was problematic."If there are two structures in violation and action is taken only against 1...and you find in the background there is a criminal offence, then what?Some solution has to be found for that...some judicial oversight", Justice Viswanathan observed."For unauthorised constructions, there has to be one law, not dependent on community," Justice Gavai said.The bench reiterated that the mere existence of accusations in a criminal case or even conviction in a case cannot be a ground to demolish their homes. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the States of Uttar Pradesh,Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, agreed that alleged involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground to demolish someone's building. However, the SG expressed concerns about the September 17 restraint placed by the Court on demolitions, saying that it could hinder the removal of genuine encroachments. The SG said that the situations highlighted by the petitioners - the use of demolitions as a punitive measure - are "far and few between", accounting for less than 2% of the actual demolitions carried out in the country."For the benefit of few, for a few cases of alleged injustices, let undue advantage not be taken by big builders and others," SG said.Court stresses need for Judicial oversightDuring the hearing, the Court stressed the need for a "judicial oversight" on demolitions carried out by local authorities. The bench underscored that the notice for demolition must be sent through a registered post to the actual owner with acknowledgement due. It also suggested that notices and orders could be digitised and uploaded on an online portal to ensure more transparency.The bench also added that there should be a window of time between the final demolition order and its implementation so that the affected persons can make alternative arrangements."We will clarify demolition can't be carried out merely because someone is an accused or convict. Also, consider, there should be a narrow window...even before orders for demolition are passed," Justice Gavai said. "Once an order is passed, you may protect them for 10-15 days...even if court entertains a grievance, question of stay will be decided within 1 month," the judge added.The Solicitor General however expressed a concern that such a general direction may amount to the Court amending the provisions of various local laws."Even if it's not authorised...it's not a happy sight to see women and children on the road. Elders coming out on roads... suppose they want to make alternative arrangements.." Justice Viswanathan said in response.Senior Advocate CU Singh, for the petitioner, submitted that there are several cases showing a pattern where the demolitions have taken place on the very next of filling of the FIR. "We understand that the State has a legitimate interest in protecting public land. But none of that obviates the need for people to be given notice. Very rarely is there a demolition of eminent emergency. There are several cases, where is FIR today, and demolition is on the next day. Demolitions have taken...

Bulldozer Actions | 'Will Clarify Demolition Can't Be Done Merely Because Someone Is Accused/Convict' : Supreme Court Reserves Judgment

Debby Jain

"Whatever directions we issue will be for pan India and apply to all equally. We are a secular country," the Court said.

Tags