Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Sept 2: The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on ‘bulldozer justice’ being practiced in various states as a retribution to alleged criminal activities and questioned how a house could be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case saying the law did not permit the destruction of the family shelters of even convicts.
“How can anybody’s home be demolished because he is an accused in a case? The law does not permit that… Can it happen even if a person is a convict?” Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a Bench with Justice K.V. Viswanathan, asked.
The court said there was a need for guidelines over bulldozer actions against accused individuals in various cases, and said a structure cannot be demolished even if one or all occupants of the house have been convicted or found guilty in a case.
The court also proposed a set of pan-India guidelines to be followed before demolishing homes. “We propose to lay down certain guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concern with regard to the issues raised (on bulldozer actions) are taken care of,” the bench said.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave sought a direction from the court to ensure that ‘bulldozer justice’ is not meted out across the country. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that no immovable property can be demolished just because the accused is involved in a criminal offence. “Such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal,” Mr Mehta said. The Solicitor General argued that the matter was being misrepresented before the court.
Hearing a batch of pleas challenging bulldozer actions across many states, the top court asked, “How can a demolition take place even if someone is accused?” “The property cannot be demolished even if a person is convicted,” it said.
“Even if he is a convict, still it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law,” the bench said. “If you are accepting this, then we will issue guidelines based on this. How can demolition be just because he is an accused or even a convict,” Justice Gavai said. “If construction is unauthorised, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will lay down a procedure. You are saying demolition only if violation of municipal laws. There is a need for guidelines, it needs to be documented,” the bench said.
Justice Viswanathan asked why directions cannot be passed to avoid such cases. “First issue notice, give time to answer, time to seek legal remedies, and then demolition,” he said. The bench stressed that it is not defending illegal construction. “We will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads, that includes a temple, but there should be guidelines for demolition,” it said.
Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and CU Singh, appearing for the petitioners, pointed to the demolition exercise in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. The lawyers said in some cases property rented out was demolished. “They demolished 50-60 year old homes because son or tenant of the owner is involved,” Mr Singh said.
Another matter that came up was demolition of a house in Rajasthan’s Udaipur after a student living there stabbed his classmate. “If a man’s son is a nuisance, demolishing his home is not the right way,” Justice Viswanathan said. The court said it will hear the matter again on September 17 and invited suggestions to tackle this issue.
Justice Gavai said an affidavit by the Uttar Pradesh government stated that immovable property can be demolished only as per a procedure established by law. “We propose to lay down some guidelines on pan-India basis so that concern raised is taken care of. We appreciate stand taken by the state of UP.”
At one point, the courtroom witnessed a heated exchange between Mr Mehta and Mr Dave. Mr Mehta said, “Some Jamiat has come before your Lordships. Those whose houses have been demolished, they have not approached.”
‘Bulldozer justice’ has become increasingly common in several parts of the country where homes of accused in criminal cases are demolished. The practice has come under strong criticism, with many questioning how the action can be taken even before allegations against a person are proved. They have also pointed why the administration must punish the whole family for the crime of one.
Mr Mehta who also appeared for the UP government which has been blamed for retributory demolitions, said municipal laws provide for the demolition of illegal structures. Mr Mehta denied targeted, communal or retributive demolitions by States. He said the States follow the law. Demolitions happened after complying with statutory procedure. The law officer said even the government was against retributive demolitions of accused persons’ or their families’ homes and properties. That was not permitted under the law.
However, he urged the court to consider an alternative to the petitioners’ narrative. Mr Mehta asked what if a person, accused of a crime, had already been facing a notice from the municipal authorities, warning him that his illegal structure was bound to be demolished.
“If he has a pending notice, he will not be absolved because he happens to be an accused in a crime. From the facts gleaned in many cases, notices had been sent to these persons. They later happened to be accused in crimes,” Mr Mehta countered.
Justice Gavai acknowledged that municipal laws do provide for demolition of illegal constructions, but they seem to be implemented “more in breach.” “We are not protecting any unauthorised structures, may it even be temples…” Justice Gavai remarked. Mr Mehta intervened to say “any religious structures.”
“If we lay down guidelines, even digitalise the process, neither authorities nor the persons concerned can take advantage,” Justice Viswanathan said. The court listed the case on September 17 for laying down guidelines. It asked petitioners to provide it with suggestions.
The petitioners had highlighted the recent cases of demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. In Madhya Pradesh, a family’s ancestral home was pulled down. In Udaipur, the municipal corporation demolished a tenant’s house for allegedly ‘encroaching’ on forest land. The razing of the house had followed shortly after the tenant’s 15-year-old son was arrested for allegedly stabbing his classmate from another community, leading to communal tensions in the city.
The last time the court heard the case in 2022, Mr Dave, appearing for Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, had said the court should view the problem from a larger perspective. He said the country was a facing an “extraordinarily serious” situation. Justice was being delivered by the arms of the bulldozer. Rule of law lay in the debris.
Mr Dave had argued that powerful State governments and its functionaries were taking advantage of municipal laws to “wreck vengeance” by using bulldozers to demolish the private homes and buildings of people whom they believe were behind communal violence and riots.
In its detailed affidavit filed two years ago, the Uttar Pradesh government had said petitions filed in the Supreme Court against “routine” demolitions were a surreptitious attempt by third parties like Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind to protect “illegal encroachments” and “sensationalise” the issue.
Uttar Pradesh had said demolitions conducted were those against unauthorised constructions on public land. Action was taken strictly under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1959 and U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973.
A batch of petitions was filed before the Supreme Court in 2022, in connection with the demolition drive scheduled for April, of the same year, in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. While the drive was stayed, the petitioners prayed for a declaration that authorities could not resort to bulldozer actions as a form of punishment.
One of these petitions was by former Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat. During a hearing in September 2023, Mr Dave had voiced concerns about the rising trend of state governments demolishing the homes of people accused of crimes, emphatically stressing that the right to a home was a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.