It was not long ago that the Supreme Court, after watching state governments take the law into their hands, to turn judge, jury and execution and carry out demolitions of homes of citizens accused of crime, came out with a detailed list of guidelines on such demolitions
Article 141 of the Constitution states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. In effect, it is the law of the land, binding not just the courts but the Indian state and all its institutions.
However, the governments and its arms run by the BJP appear to answer to some other idea when it comes to their whimsical approach to people whom they see as criminals even when no court of law has found them so. For, this can be the only reason why the Nagpur Municipal Corporation has gone ahead with the demolition of the houses of some of those accused of the recent violence in the town and of their kin. It demolished one house fully and stopped the operation on the premises of the other only after the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court intervened and stayed its move. The court ordered that the corporation’s actions required legal scrutiny after the petitioners complained that the demolitions were arbitrary and in contravention of the Supreme Court guidelines.
It was not long ago that the Supreme Court, after watching state governments take the law into their hands, to turn judge, jury and execution and carry out demolitions of homes of citizens accused of crime, came out with a detailed list of guidelines on such demolitions. The crux of the guidelines was that the government cannot raze homes as punishment for being accused in a case, and can do so only if the law warranted it.
And while doing so, the state must give early notice and sufficient time to the occupants of such houses to move out. Bulldozer raj has no place in a civilised society and cannot overrule the law, the court underlined, and warned that any lapse in sticking to the guidelines would be construed as contempt of court with the officials who are responsible for it facing appropriate consequences.
The Supreme Court guidelines were clear and in line with the fundamental rights bestowed by the Constitution on citizens. Sadly, the apex court itself has so far been reluctant to act to protect them. It was only recently that a couple of petitioners from Uttar Pradesh had to return disappointed after their homes were demolished in violation of the guidelines. Instead of taking an unequivocal position and upholding its own guidelines, the court, which expressed shock at the “high-handed” demolition in Prayagraj within 24 hours of serving notices to them without giving sufficient time to appeal, failed to give the victims their due even while observing that “courts cannot tolerate such process” and “If we tolerate in one case it will continue”.
Administrative high-handedness and arbitrary actions that make the lives of ordinary citizens miserable can be halted only if the courts of law stop those perpetrating such acts and punish them. It’s time the courts stopped counselling errant authorities and made an example of them.
