SC puts a break on 'bulldozer justice'; illegal demolition against 'ethos of Constitution'

Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of our Constitution, observed the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan made this observation while directing authorities across the country not to demolish property, including of those accused of crime till October 1 without seeking its permission. However, the bench clarified that its order will not be applicable to unauthorised structures on public roads, footpaths etc.

The top court was hearing petitions which alleged that properties of those accused of crime were being demolished in several states illegally.

"Even if there is one instance of an illegal demolition… it is against the ethos of our Constitution," the bench said, adding that till October 1, the next date of hearing, no demolition be carried out "without seeking leave of this court".

The court also squashed concerns by the government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that its order would impact legally sanctioned demolitions.

"The heavens won't fall if we ask you to hold your hands till (the) next hearing", said the two-judge bench.

Outside noise is not affecting us: SC bench

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta then told the bench that a "narrative" was being built over the demolition of properties.

He said there was a petition before the apex court which alleged that because the person belonged to a particular religion, his property was demolished.

"Let them bring to your lordships' notice one instance of demolition where the law is not complied (with)," the law officer said, adding that the affected parties have not approached the court because they know that they have received notices and their constructions were illegal.

"Rest assured that outside noise is not influencing us," the bench told the senior law officer.

SC to lay down guidelines

"The 'narrative' is not influencing us. We made it clear that we won't (stop) demolition of unauthorised construction... but the executive can't be a 'judge' (of what is illegal)," said the bench. It added that it will also lay down guidelines to identify potentially illegal constructions.

The bench also went on to express its displeasure over the statements made after the September 2 hearing in the matter during which the apex court had said it proposes to lay down certain guidelines on the issue that would be enforceable across the country.

"After that order, there have been statements that the bulldozer will continue … and it all depends in whose hands the steering is," the bench said.

Stop grandstanding: SC

The irate court which had already come down heavily, twice this month, on 'bulldozer justice', also warned against "grandstanding" and "glorification" of this practice.

"Mr Mehta, after these directives are laid down, we will seek your assistance on this glorification and grandstanding… You will assist us on how to stop this. If necessary, we will ask the Election Commission also," the bench said. The reference to the EC is significant in the light of the upcoming Assembly polls in Jammu and Kashmir and Haryana.

"No demolition, till next, date, without permission of this court," reiterated the bench.

Criminal offence not ground for demolition

While hearing these petitions on September 2, the apex court had questioned how can anybody's house be demolished just because he was an accused.

The observation was significant given the frequency with which some states rush out bulldozers to demolish homes. A recent example being the one that happened in Jaipur, where a house was destroyed because the owner's son stabbed a classmate.

"How can anybody's house be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, still it can't be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law," the court had observed.

The solicitor general, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, had referred to an earlier affidavit filed by the state in the matter.

He had said the affidavit states 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.

Mehta had said the state has made it clear 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 top law officer had 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.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind files petitions

The counsel appearing for one of the petitioners had said almost every state was now indulging in this practice and demolishing properties.

"This is happening daily... please give a short date (to the next hearing). That is all I am saying..." one petitioner said, while another asked how "in a neighbourhood only one house is 'unauthorised'".

The top court was hearing the petitions filed by 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 Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had earlier filed a plea in the apex court over demolition of some buildings in Jahangirpuri area of the national capital.

The Muslim body had also filed a petition in the apex court seeking directions to the Uttar Pradesh government to ensure no further demolition of properties of those accused of violence was carried out in the state. It had also said no demolition should be carried out without following the due process of law and sans prior notice.

SP chief reacts

Meanwhile, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav demanded an apology for houses and buildings bulldozed until now.

Moreover, responding to the court questioning how anybody's house can be demolished just because he is an accused, Yadav told reporters, "The bulldozer was meant to scare people... to suppress the voice of the Opposition. I thank and congratulate the Supreme Court for its decision to stop the bulldozers."

(With inputs from agencies)