SC Orders Stop to Demolitions, Calls ‘Bulldozer Justice’ Unlawful Actions Against Ethos of Constitution Till October 1

NEW DELHI, Sept 17: The Supreme Court has intervened to halt what has been referred to as “bulldozer justice,” stating that even a single instance of illegal demolition violates the Constitution’s core principles. During a hearing on Tuesday, the court directed that no property, including those belonging to accused persons, should be demolished without its explicit permission until October 1. However, this directive does not extend to unauthorized structures on public roads or footpaths. The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan, reiterated that illegal demolitions cannot be justified under any circumstances, emphasizing that such actions undermine the ethos of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court was addressing petitions accusing several states of illegally demolishing properties belonging to those accused of criminal activity. In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that a “narrative” was being created suggesting properties were being demolished based on the accused’s religious affiliation. Mehta challenged this view, asserting that no illegal demolitions had taken place without legal notices. He added that individuals who had received demolition notices were not challenging these actions in court because they were aware their constructions violated legal regulations. Mehta assured the court that external noise and public discourse would not influence the legal proceedings.

The court, however, expressed displeasure with certain statements made following its September 2 hearing. During that session, the court indicated its intention to establish nationwide guidelines regarding demolitions. It had observed that demolitions should not occur simply because someone is an accused, questioning how a person’s home could be destroyed solely based on their involvement in an offense. The bench highlighted that even if an individual were convicted, demolition could only be carried out after following the legally prescribed procedures.

The bench pointed to statements made after its September 2 directives, where some public figures implied that demolitions would continue depending on the decision-maker’s discretion. Expressing concern over this “grandstanding,” the court sought the solicitor general’s assistance in curbing such rhetoric and hinted at possibly involving the Election Commission in addressing this issue. The court stressed that its guidelines would need to be followed uniformly across the country to prevent any misuse of power.

In the hearing, the solicitor general, representing Uttar Pradesh, referred to a previously submitted affidavit by the state. The affidavit clarified that demolitions should not be carried out solely because an individual is accused of a crime. It stated that property demolitions could only take place for violations of applicable municipal laws or development authority regulations. Mehta emphasized that the legal procedure for property demolition must be followed strictly, and involvement in criminal activity should not be used as a pretext to bypass due process.

During the hearing, the petitioners argued that many states had adopted a practice of demolishing the properties of individuals accused of rioting and other violent acts. The petitions, filed by groups including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, sought directives from the court to prevent further illegal demolitions. The Muslim body had previously raised concerns about demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area and later filed a petition specifically addressing the actions of the Uttar Pradesh government. The petitioners argued that demolitions were being carried out without adhering to the due process of law, and in some cases, without providing prior notice to the affected parties.

The court has consistently upheld that any demolition of property, particularly in relation to criminal allegations, must follow established legal procedures. The Supreme Court’s stance is clear: no person’s property can be demolished solely because they are accused of a crime. Furthermore, demolitions can only be conducted for legal violations, such as unauthorized construction, and not as punitive measures tied to criminal charges. This distinction is crucial to prevent the misuse of power and ensure that citizens’ rights are upheld.

The significance of this ruling extends beyond the immediate cases being heard. It sets a strong precedent that illegal demolitions, particularly those tied to criminal accusations, will not be tolerated. The court’s intervention highlights the importance of due process and safeguards against the arbitrary use of state power. By emphasizing the need for proper legal procedures, the court aims to protect citizens’ rights and ensure that justice is not undermined by extrajudicial actions.

The Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily halt demolitions until October 1 is a vital step in ensuring that property rights are respected and that the law is applied uniformly across the country. This directive provides an opportunity for the court to lay down comprehensive guidelines that will prevent future illegal demolitions and protect individuals from the misuse of state power. As the case progresses, the court’s ruling will likely have far-reaching implications for property rights and the balance between law enforcement and individual freedoms in India.

The ongoing debate over “bulldozer justice” touches on fundamental constitutional principles, including the right to property and the rule of law. The court’s insistence on proper legal procedures highlights the need for accountability and transparency in government actions, particularly when dealing with sensitive matters such as demolitions. While the court’s order does not condone unauthorized construction or encroachment on public land, it reinforces the importance of following the established legal framework for any demolition activity. By doing so, the court aims to uphold the integrity of the legal system and prevent the erosion of constitutional values.

As the Supreme Court prepares to issue further guidelines on this matter, the hope is that these measures will serve as a deterrent against illegal demolitions and protect citizens from the arbitrary use of force by the state. The court’s intervention is a reminder that the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and any actions that violate its principles will be met with firm resistance.

#SupremeCourt #BulldozerJustice #IllegalDemolition #ConstitutionalRights #JusticePrevails #HumanRights #RuleOfLaw #SCVerdict #StopDemolitions #DueProcess #LegalAction #RightToProperty #EthosOfConstitution #CourtRuling #JusticeForAll