On September 17, the division bench of the Supreme Court halts all ‘Demolition Actions’ across the country in a significant interim direction while hearing a batch of petition against ‘bulldozer actions’ in various states. The division bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan addressed the issue of illegal demolitions, the Supreme Court while underscoring the importance of upholding the ethos of the Constitution. Justice Viswanathan emphasised that even a single instance of an illegal demolition would violate constitutional principles, asserting that the rule of law must prevail over executive actions. The court made it clear that the state cannot act as both judge and enforcer, stressing that the protection of individual rights is central to the constitutional framework. This focus on safeguarding constitutional values highlighted the judiciary’s role in ensuring that even enforcement measures, like demolitions, adhere strictly to the law, preserving fairness and justice for all.
It is to be highlighted that the bench, while passing this direction, has also clarified that this order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.
The direction of the Court made a blanket ban over the bulldozer demolition across the country, till October 1, as the matter is listed for next hearing. Previously, the Court expressed that guidelines on ‘Pan-India Basis’ would be laid down, so that the concerns regarding demolition of properties of accused persons are taken care of. The Court also sought all parties’ suggestions to frame appropriate guidelines on its September 2 order.
Background
The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of pleas filed against the ‘bulldozer actions’ happening across the country in various states, especially in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The pleas are expressing their primary concern with the allegedly arbitrary bulldozing of houses and properties of the accused as a punitive punishment.
On April 20, 2022, the Islamic Cleric Body, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind was filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court relating to demolition drive by North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) in April, 2022 in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area and alleged that the NDMC had provided insufficient notice to those whose properties were razed.
As on April 16, 2022 a Shobha Yatra to celebrate Hanuman Jayanti was organised in Jahangirpuri. Rioting took place after stones were allegedly pelted at the event. Over 20 people were arrested in connection with the violence, with five accused booked under the National Security Act, 1980. On April 19, the Chief of Delhi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wing wrote to the NDMC pointing to the rioters’ illegally constructed homes and establishments. The next day, the NDMC, led by Mayor and BJP politician Raja Iqbal Singh, launched a drive to raze encroachments in the area, demolishing several structures in Jahangirpuri, many of which were owned by Muslims.
On April 20, 2022, the bench consisting of Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli stayed the Jahangirpuri demolition drive and directed authorities to maintain status quo.
On April 21, 2022, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat and individuals whose properties had been razed, filed a petition in the SC challenging the NDMC’s continued demolition of properties in violation of the Court’s Order dated April 20, 2022.
On April 21, 2022, taking cognizance of the petition in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022], a bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai stayed the bulldozer actions and demolition drive in Jahangirpuri and directed authorities to not take any further action until further order of the court.
The demolition drive was stayed by the Supreme Court but the petitioners raised their concern before the bench against the alleged illegal ‘bulldozer’ action taken by the various states across the country as a form of punitive punishment against the accused person’s properties.
Details of the present pleas before the bench:
The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications along with pleas filed by Jamiat and CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat, challenging recent demolition actions by authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These pleas have been moved by the victims, Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh, whose homes were targeted. Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned one of the applications earlier in the day, requesting it be heard alongside the ongoing Brinda Karat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors, [W.P. (C) 294 of 2022] which challenges the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri.
One of the applications was filed by the Rashid Khan, a 60-years old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur. In Udaipur the District Administration demolished the house of Rashid as one of his tenant’s boy, allegedly stabbed his classmate. An order was issued by the district forest authority and Municipal Corporation on Friday, August 16, 2024 and gave the family time till Tuesday i.e. August 20 to vacate their home, but the authorities demolished the house a little later on August 17.
The other plea was filed by Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh who has also alleged that his house and shop were unlawfully bulldozed by the state administration. Both Khan and Hussain’s applications were filed in the context of a case previously submitted by Jamiat Ulama I Hind, which objected to the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh following communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.
A detailed report can be read here
Can’t demolish house just because somebody is accused: SC
Notably, On September 2, 2024, the Division bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan strongly criticized the practice of ‘bulldozer actions’ against the properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The bench proposed the intention to lay down pan-India guideline with regards to the demolitions.
Justice Gavai while taking note on the petitioner’s concern with raising ‘bulldozer action’ taken by the various state government against accused’s property, questioned that “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he’s convict.” he also clarified that the Court won’t protect unauthorized constructions, he remarked that some guidelines are necessary.
Justice Vishwanathan also emphasized on the need for specific guidelines in relation to the demolition actions. He observed that “why can’t some guidelines be laid down? It should be put across states. This needs to be streamlined.” He further added that “a father may have recalcitrant son, but if the house is demolished on this ground, this is not the way to go about it”,
Justice Gavai in furtherance of the observation made by Justice Vishwanathan, added that even if a construction is unauthorized, the demolition can be carried out with due procedure, reported Live Law.
During the hearing on September 2, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the State’s position is clear from its affidavit which stated that merely because a person is alleged to be part of an offence, it can’t be ground for demolition. “No immovable property can be demolished because owner/occupant is involved in offense,” the SG read from the affidavit.
SG Mehta also addressed the bench stating that in the incidents of alleged illegal demolition cited in the petition filed against the UP Government, notices for violations were sent to the persons, and since they did not respond, the unauthorised constructions were demolished following the process in the municipal laws. He also opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that the immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
According to a report in Live Law, the bench said remarked that ‘lets us try to resolve the issue on pan-India basis’ while adjourning the hearing for September 17, 2024. The bench also suggested that counsels for the parties should give their suggestions so that the Court can frame appropriate guidelines. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, submitted that several houses of persons were demolished in Delhi’ Jahangirpuri area, just after the riots in April, 2022 on the allegation that they had instigated riots. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh also submitted that in Udaipur where a person’s house was demolished because the tenant’s son was accused of a crime.
The order dated September 2, 2024 may be read here:
SC criticized glorification, grandstanding of bulldozer action
During the hearing on September 17, 2024, while staying the arbitrary ‘bulldozer justice’ system practiced by various state governments as retaliation to accused’s property and establishments, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan flagged the glorification, grandstanding and justification of the demolition action. The bench while expressing its displeasure with ‘Bulldozer Justice” and its glorification, questioned it stating, “Now, whether this should happen in our country, Whether the Election Commission can be noticed so that some kind of a thing can be laid down?”
The bench also sought assistance from SG Tushar Mehta on the issue of glorification and grandstanding on demolition. The bench said that “you will assist us on how to stop this. If necessary, we will ask the Election Commission also.”
Outside noise is not influencing us, illegal demolition against the ethos of the Constitution: SC
During the hearing a counsel appearing for the petitioners said that even after the Supreme Court’s September 2 order, demolitions were carried out in the country.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta while opposing the contention of the petitioner, submitted before the bench on September 17 that a ‘narrative’ was being built over the demolition of properties. He further 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),” SG Mehta added. He said that the affected parties have not approached the court because they know that they have received notices and their constructions were illegal. When SG Mehta argued about the narrative being built over the demolition action, the bench said, “Rest assured that outside noise is not influencing us.”
The bench said it will hear the matter on October 1, and till then no demolition shall be done without its leave.
When SG Mehra raised objections to the Court’s order while saying that the hands of authorities can’t be tied in this manner, Justice Gavai said that “heavens won’t fall” if the demolitions are stopped for two weeks.
Justice Gavai further stated that “Stay your hands. What will happen in 15 days?”
Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand while upholding the rule of law, stressed that, “Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of Constitution”. Importantly, the bench observed that the executive “can’t be a judge”, it said the directives to be passed by the court after hearing the parties would apply pan-India.
The bench said it had made it clear on September 2 that the court will not protect any unauthorised construction on a public road or public place.
SG Mehta said while highlighting one of the matters, a footpath was encroached upon, and notices were issued before it was cleared. “For footpath, we will say not even a notice is needed. Demolish forthwith even if there is a religious structure of any religion,” the bench said.
The bench clarified that the order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.
The order dated September 17, 2024 may be read here:
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on October 1, 2024
Related: