The Supreme Court on Tuesday halted unauthorised bulldozer action against private property, anywhere in India, till October 1, when it will next hear arguments against ‘bulldozer justice’, the practice by some states to demolish property owned by people accused in criminal cases.
The court dismissed concerns by the government – represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta – that its order would impact legally sanctioned demolitions. “The heavens won’t fall if we ask you to hold your hands till next hearing”, a bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared.
An irate top court – which has already come down hard, twice this month, on ‘bulldozer justice’ – also warned against “grandstanding” and “glorification” of this practice. “No demolition, till next, date, without permission of this court,” it said, warning the Election Commission may be put on notice.
The court’s reference to the poll panel is significant given elections are due in Jammu and Kashmir (the first Assembly election in a decade) and Haryana, where the Bharatiya Janata Party is looking to return to power. Elections are also due this year in BJP-ruled Maharashtra and Jharkhand.
The court also waved away Mr Mehta’s suggestion it had been influenced by a “narrative”, pointing out “even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of the Constitution”.
“The ‘narrative’ is not influencing us. We made it clear that we won’t (stop) demolition of unauthorised construction… but the executive can’t be a ‘judge’ (of what is illegal),” the Supreme Court said, saying also it will lay down guidelines to identify potentially illegal constructions.
However the court – hearing petitions against bulldozing of homes and commercial properties belonging to individuals accused of or convicted in criminal cases – also said its order is not applicable to removing encroachments in public spaces like roads, railway tracks, and water bodies.
In today’s hearing some petitioners said demolition had taken place despite the court’s earlier instructions – that “alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolition of property”.
“This is happening daily… please give a short date (to the next hearing). That is all I am saying…” one petitioner said, while another asked how “in a neighbourhood only one house is ‘unauthorised'”.
Earlier, Mr Mehta had referred to demolitions in Madhya Pradesh to counter claims that bulldozers were used to target property belonging to non-Hindus, specifically Muslim, community members.
“In Madhya Pradesh… 70 shops were demolished after following procedure and more than 50 belonged to Hindus. What they are saying – ‘mohallas’, etc. – is just ‘narrative building’!”
“The narrative has appealed to this court…” the Solicitor General declared.
