SC frowns upon ‘Bulldozer Justice’, will lay down guidelines

New Delhi, Sep 02: The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the trend of demolishing the houses or properties of those who are accused of crimes and said that it would issue guidelines to tackle such issues of “bulldozer justice.”

The Bar and Bench reported that a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said that such demolition cannot be allowed solely because a person is accused of a criminal offence.

“How can demolition be (carried out) just because (a person) is an accused?” the Court asked.

The court also appreciated the stand taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh which said that demolition can be done only if a structure is illegal.

"We propose to lay down some guidelines on a pan-India basis so that concern raised is taken care of. We appreciate the stand taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh. We find that it is appropriate that counsel for the parties can give suggestions so that court can frame guidelines which are applicable on pan-India basis,” the court recorded in its order today.

The bench requested that the suggestions be given to Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, who was requested to collate them and present them to the court.

The court was hearing two pleas filed on the issue of such demolitions that were alleged to be taking place without notice and as a form of "revenge."

The pleas were filed by Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh.

The application by Khan, a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur, said that his house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17, 2024.

This was after communal clashes broke out in Udaipur, several vehicles were set on fire and markets closed following the issuance of a prohibitory order after a Muslim schoolboy allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate who later succumbed to his injuries.

Khan is the father of the accused schoolboy.

Similarly, Muhammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh has alleged that his house and shop were illegally bulldozed by the State administration.

The two applications were filed in a case earlier filed by Jamiat Ulama I Hind against the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana's Nuh, following the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the area.

During today's hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta tried to address the concerns raised in the case by maintaining that only illegal structures are demolished.

An affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh government stating that demolitions would be carried out only in accordance with the law.

“No immovable property cannot be demolished just because the accused is involved in a criminal offence and such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal," Solicitor General Mehta said.

"So if you are accepting this ... then we will issue guidelines based on this," Justice Gavai replied.

Justice Viswanathan added that the guidelines so issued could deal with the process to generally be followed before any structure is bulldozed.

This process could include the issue of notice, time for a reply, time for pursuing legal remedies etc. before the demolition is carried out, he said.

"What you have said is fair. Why cannot such guidelines be passed?" the judge remarked, addressing the Solicitor General (SG). SG Mehta pointed out that temporary structures may have to be demolished as and when they arise.

"Yes, yes we will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads ... That includes a temple also," Justice Gavai assured. "We are on broad guidelines so that there is no bulldozer tomorrow and so that it is documented and checked so that either side cannot point any lacunae ... Demolition on any such ground of being an accused is not correct," Justice Viswanathan added.

"That is not the way also," SG Mehta said, in turn.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave (representing Jamiat Ulama I Hind), meanwhile, recounted how one such bulldozer demolition in Delhi's Jahangirpuri took place.

"On April 16 permission was sought for protest ... it was refused.. then also they did it and then the officials sought more men to demolish the properties... Is this fair? ... Imagine, the house of a tenant and not even the owner of the property was demolished," he argued.

The court asked if the act was carried out by a mob. It was done by officials, Dave replied.

Senior Advocate C U Singh appeared for one of the applicants and raised similar concerns.

"They demolished 50-60 year old homes. The home was demolished because the son or tenant of the owner is involved (accused in a crime)… one case is from Madhya Pradesh and one from Udaipur," Singh said.

Advocate Fauzia Shakil represented another applicant.

The court said that it would hear the matter in detail on Tuesday afternoon and sought suggestions from all sides so that guidelines may be framed on the issue.

In the meanwhile, the bench urged the parties not to turn the court into a battleground.

“Mr Dave, let us not turn the court into a battleground. We expect (this from) both sides," Justice Gavai said.

"Not me. I have been respectful. I am not behaving like a street fighter," said S G Mehta. "Such below-the-belt remarks ... You are the Solicitor General of India," Dave shot back. The Supreme Court today also allowed the intervention application moved by the National Federation of Indian Women in the matter, represented by Advocates Nizam Pasha and Rashmi Singh.