Supreme Court to examine suggestions to stop ‘bulldozer justice’

The Supreme Court will examine on Tuesday (September 17, 2024) suggestions from petitioners seeking relief from States bulldozing homes and private properties of undertrials, and frame pan-India guidelines.

A Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai had made it clear that the law did not permit retributory demolition of the properties of accused, who were still awaiting trial, or their immediate families.

“How can anybody’s home be demolished because he is an accused in a case? The law does not permit that… Can it happen even if a person is a convict?” Justice Gavai had orally remarked during a hearing on September 2.

Expect Supreme Court to issue clear guidelines on ‘bulldozer justice’ issue, says Rahul Gandhi

The court had invited suggestions from the petitioners for framing uniform guidelines against illegal demolitions. Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, the main petitioner, has suggested prior notice at least 45 to 60 days in advance of a demolition specifying the legal provisions under which the property would be razed and attaching personal liability on officers who violate the law through arbitrary action.

The petitioner sought immediate and comprehensive relief, restitution and compensation to persons and their families whose homes have been bulldozed.

‘Bulldozer justice’ must stop, has no place in a society governed by the rule of law, says Congress

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the petitioner along with senior advocate C.U. Singh, had in the previous hearing urged the court to make a statement that “bulldozer justice will not be meted out anywhere in the country” through its guidelines.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Uttar Pradesh government, had countered that municipal laws provide for the demolition of illegal structures. Mr. Mehta had denied targeted, communal or retributive demolitions by States.

On September 12, another Bench of the apex court led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy had held that the alleged involvement of a person in a crime was not a ground for the demolition of his or her property.

The verdict had made it clear that authorities could not run a bulldozer over the laws of the land and the court would not remain “oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme”.