The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 1, 2024) promised to protect even convicted criminals from State-sponsored punitive demolition of their legal private property but refused any kind of immunity to public space encroachers, whether they be Hindus or Muslims.
ADVERTISEMENT
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan said a conviction or being accused of a crime was no ground for States to bulldoze private homes and shops.
Supreme Court hearing on bulldozer action updates
But at the same time, the apex court, which has proposed to frame pan-India guidelines to protect private property from illegal and targeted State demolitions, said it would not condone or shield public encroachments, irrespective of the faith of the violators.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We are a secular country… Whatever we lay down, we lay down for all citizens. There cannot be a particular law for a particular religion. Unauthorised constructions belonging to members of any community have to go, no matter their religion or faith,” Justice Gavai observed orally in court.
The Bench was hearing petitions accusing States like Uttar Pradesh of misusing municipal laws to bulldoze the private property of members of minority communities. The petitions argued that municipal laws were misused for crime-fighting and grandstanding by ruling parties in these States.
Justice Viswanathan pointed out during the hearing that there have been 4.45 lakh demolitions in recent years.
ADVERTISEMENT
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, agreed that even conviction in heinous offences such as rape, murder and terrorism should not lead to punitive demolition.
However, he said demolitions under municipal laws must not always be given a communal colour. The law officer expressed an apprehension that the top court’s intervention on the basis of a few illegal demolitions may work to encourage encroachments and paralyse “genuine” demolition of unauthorised structures across the country.
“It would open a Pandora’s box,” Mr. Mehta feared.
ADVERTISEMENT
Public interest
“Any religious structure in the middle of a public road, be it a dargah or some temple, it has to go… For us, public safety and public interest are paramount,” Justice Gavai said, clarifying that the court’s ambit was confined to illegal State demolitions.
Justice Viswanathan illustrated how State action should not display obvious discrimination. The judge suggested some sort of judicial oversight over State demolitions.
“The real problem is, let’s say, there are two structures having violations. But proceedings are initiated [under the municipal law] against only one. You find that the owner or occupant of that structure was accused of a criminal offence just before the proceedings started… Now, that is the issue. Proceedings happen only with this one structure, while the other one remains intact…” Justice Viswanathan explained.
ADVERTISEMENT
Senior advocate C.U. Singh said the petitioners were not against the lawful use of municipal laws. “We are only against the abuse of these laws by authorities,” he submitted. He referred to the case of a man accused of pelting stones at a religious ceremony. His house was demolished the same day.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said these demolitions were a display of power through bulldozers, similar to power derived from the barrel of a gun. He said the demolitions were meant as a spectacle with well-known TV anchors giving bytes perched on these machines.
Justice Viswanathan suggested videographing demolitions, so the footage could be used in court to prove the State action was either required or disproportionate.
The court finally reserved the case for judgment while extending its September 17 order staying illegal bulldozer demolitions across the country.