Bulldozer Move Must Stop, Says SC

“Even if he is a convict, still it can't be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law,” a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan said on pleas against the demolition action on suspects’ premises with bulldozers.

The apex court said it will lay down pan-India guidelines to address concerns on demolitions. The top court, however, clarified it will not protect any unauthorised constructions or encroachment on public roads.

Underscoring the need for formulating guidelines on the issue, the bench said it was necessary to ensure neither an individual takes advantage of a loophole nor the authorities rely on lacunae. “As they said, a pious father can have recalcitrant sons and vice-versa, but this is no way to go about it,” the top court said.

“Though it is a question of law, it is seen that it is followed more in the breach,” the bench observed.

Appearing for Uttar Pradesh, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta said the petitioners have projected the issue as if houses were demolished only because some people committed an offence. “This controversy can be put to an end by my (UP) affidavit which I had filed long time back,” he said, adding, he can show that the authorities had issued notices well in advance before the demolition was carried out.

Mr Mehta referred to an earlier affidavit filed by Uttar Pradesh, which outlined that merely because a person was alleged to have been a part of some offence, can never be a ground for demolition of his immovable property. The affidavit has said that demolition of an immovable property can take place “only for violation of and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the respective applicable municipal law or law governing development authorities of the area”.

The S-G said no immovable property can be demolished solely on the ground that the owner or occupant of such property was involved in a criminal offence.

The top court told Mr Mehta: “If you are accepting this position, we will record and issue guidelines for all the states… We are not going to protect any unauthorised constructions or encroachment in public roads. Not even the temples on public roads.”

Mr Mehta said the issue will be discussed with the states in order to find a solution.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, said: “Let a statement be recorded that across the country, bulldozer justice will not be meted out to people.” He said almost every state was now indulging in this practice and demolishing properties.

Senior advocate C.U. Singh, representing other applicants, referred to the demolition of properties in some other states.

Noting that the petitions have raised grievances about immovable properties of people accused of crimes being demolished, but this position has been disputed by Uttar Pradesh and an affidavit has been filed by the state, which says immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with due procedure, the bench said: “We propose to lay down certain guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concerns with regard to the issues raised are taken care of.”

The bench asked the counsel for the parties to give their suggestions so that the court can frame appropriate guidelines which will be applicable on a pan-India basis.

The top court also asked the parties to supply the copy of their suggestions to the counsel appearing for Madhya Pradesh and said the state's lawyer will collate them. The parties have been asked to submit draft proposals by September 13. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 17.

The top court was hearing the petitions filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and others seeking directions to various state governments to ensure no further demolition of properties of those accused in cases of rioting and violence takes place. The body of Muslim clerics had earlier filed a plea in the apex court over the demolition of some buildings in the Jahangirpuri area of the national capital. The petition had also said no demolition should be carried out without following the due process and without prior notice.