The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday ordered a temporary halt on the demolition of any property across India without the Court’s prior permission, amid growing cases of ‘bulldozer justice’.
This decision will remain in effect until October 1, the next scheduled date of hearing.
However, the apex court clarified that this stay order will not apply to unauthorized constructions on public roads, footpaths, and similar public spaces.
The Court’s ruling comes amid rising concerns over demolitions being carried out by various state authorities. “Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of our Constitution,” the top court said.
During a hearing on petitions filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and others, the apex court underscored that demolitions cannot be justified merely because someone is accused of a criminal offense.
In response to the senior law officer’s argument, the court stated, “Let them bring to your lordships’ notice one instance of demolition where the law is not complied (with).” He further argued that affected parties had not approached the court because “they know that they have received notices and their constructions were illegal.”
The bench clarified its stance, stating, “Rest assured that outside noise is not influencing us,” and expressed displeasure over statements made after the September 2 hearing. The court had proposed laying down nationwide guidelines on demolitions during that session. Referring to these statements, the court remarked, “After that order, there have been statements that the bulldozer will continue… and it all depends in whose hands the steering is.”
The bench further addressed the solicitor general, saying, “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 court had earlier raised questions on how a person’s house could be demolished just because they were accused of a crime, saying, “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.”
However, the court made it clear that it will not protect any unauthorized construction or encroachments on public roads.
The solicitor general, representing Uttar Pradesh, reiterated the state’s stance, asserting that demolition can only occur in accordance with municipal laws. “The affidavit states that merely because a person was alleged to have been a part of some offense can never be a ground for demolition of his immovable property,” he said. He also emphasized that no property can be demolished solely because its owner or occupant is involved in a criminal offense.
Counsel for one of the petitioners argued that nearly every state is “indulging in this practice and demolishing properties.”
