‘Bulldozer justice’: Can’t demolish house just because someone is accused, says SC

Tribune News Service

Advertisement

New Delhi, September 2

As many BJP-ruled states resort to bulldozer action against ‘illegal’ houses of offenders, the Supreme Court on Monday said it will lay down guidelines on the issue as it wondered how someone’s house can be demolished just because the person happened to be an accused.

“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,” said a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai.

While hearing petitions filed by ‘Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’ and others seeking directions to various states to top demolition of properties of those accused rioting and violence, the Bench said frowned upon such demolition action and said it should be carried out without following the due process and without prior notice to the occupants.

“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,” said the Bench – which also included Justice KV Viswanathan.

“A father may have a recalcitrant son, but if the house is demolished on this ground...this is not the way to go about it,” it said.

The top court, however, said, “We are not going to protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment in public roads. Not even the temples on public roads.”

Asking advocates representing various parties to submit their suggestions to senior advocate Nachiketa Joshi, who would collate them, the Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 17.

On behalf of the Uttar Pradesh Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to an earlier affidavit filed by the state that said merely being accused of an offence can never be a ground for demolition of someone’s immovable property and that it 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”.

Asserting that he can show that authorities had issued notices well in advance before demolition was carried out, Mehta said the petitioners projected as if houses were demolished only because some people committed an offence.

“This controversy can be put to an end by my (Uttar Pradesh) affidavit which I had filed a long time back,” Mehta said.

“If you are accepting this position, we will record it and issue guidelines for all the states,” the Bench said, adding, “Though it is a question of law, it is seen that it is followed more in breach.”

It said guidelines were needed to ensure that neither an individual took advantage of a loophole nor authorities relied on lacunae.

On behalf of Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, senior counsel Dushyant Dave complained that almost every state was using bulldozers to demolish properties of accused persons. “Let a statement be recorded that across the country, bulldozer justice will not be meted out to people,” said Dave.

The hearing witnessed heated exchange between Mehta and Dave with the Bench asking them not to turn the court into a battleground.

Contending that the right to shelter was an important facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioners submitted that demolishing the homes of those accused of crimes went against the Constitution and the top court should order reconstruction of houses demolished by authorities.

One of the petitioners was Rashid Khan—a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur—whose house was allegedly demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17, 2024, after his son allegedly stabbed a Hindu classmate to death, leading to communal clashes.