The Supreme Court today came down heavily on 'bulldozer justice', questioning how a house can be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case. The court also proposed a set of pan-India guidelines to be followed before demolishing homes.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave sought a direction from the court to ensure that 'bulldozer justice' is not meted out across the country.
Addressing the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that no immovable property cannot be demolished just because the accused is involved in a criminal offence. "Such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal," Mr Mehta said. The Solicitor General, however, argued that the matter is being misrepresented before the court.
"If you are accepting this, then we will issue guidelines based on this. How can demolition be just because he is an accused or even a convict," Justice Gavai said.
"If construction is unauthorised, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will lay down a procedure. You are saying demolition only if violation of municipal laws. There is a need for guidelines, it needs to be documented," the bench said.
Justice Viswanathan asked why directions cannot be passed to avoid such cases. "First issue notice, give time to answer, time to seek legal remedies, and then demolition," he said.
The bench stressed that it is not defending illegal construction. "We will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads, that includes a temple, but there should be guidelines for demolition," it said.
Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and CU Singh, appearing for the petitioners, pointed to the demolition exercise in Delhi's Jahangirpuri. The lawyers said that in some cases property rented out was demolished. "They demolished 50-60 year old homes because son or tenant of the owner is involved," Mr Singh said.
Another matter that came up was demolition of a house in Rajasthan's Udaipur after a student living there stabbed his classmate. "If a man's son is a nuisance, demolishing his home is not the right way," Justice Viswanathan said. The court said it will hear the matter again on September 17 and invited suggestions to tackle this issue.
Justice Gavai said that an affidavit by the Uttar Pradesh government states that immovable property can be demolished only as per a procedure established by law. "We propose to lay down some guidelines on pan-India basis so that concern raised is taken care of. We appreciate stand taken by the state of UP."
At one point, the courtroom witnessed a heated exchange between Mr Mehta and Mr Dave. Mr Mehta said, "Some Jamiat has come before your Lordships Those whose houses have been demolished, they have not approached." He then said, referring to Mr Dave, "If he wants to make it dirty..."
This drew a sharp response. "Don't say dirty... you are always hitting below the belt. You are the Solicitor General, act like it," Mr Dave said.
This prompted Justice Gavai to intervene and he appealed to the senior lawyers to not turn the courtroom into a battleground.
'Bulldozer justice' has become increasingly common in several parts of the country where homes of accused in criminal cases are demolished. The practice has come under strong criticism, with many questioning how the action can be taken even before allegations against a person are proved. They have also pointed why the administration must punish the whole family for the crime of one.