Today, On 1st October, The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment in the “bulldozer justice” case, stressing the importance of public safety. The court emphasized that any religious structure, be it a temple or dargah, encroaching on roads or railway tracks must be removed. It asserted that its directives on anti-encroachment measures will apply equally to all, irrespective of religion.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on Tuesday reserved its judgment in the widely debated “bulldozer justice” case, underscoring the principle that public safety must take precedence over all other concerns.
The court made it clear that any religious structure, whether a temple, dargah, or any other place of worship, encroaching on public roads, railway tracks, or other essential infrastructure must be removed.
The bench emphasized that its rulings on anti-encroachment actions are meant to apply universally, regardless of the religious affiliation of the structure involved.
Supreme Court today affirmed that public safety is paramount, stating that any religious structure encroaching on roads, water bodies, or railway tracks must be removed.
Stressing that India is a secular nation, the court emphasized that its orders regarding bulldozer actions and anti-encroachment drives apply to all citizens, regardless of their religion.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions against the use of bulldozers on properties of individuals accused of crimes, a practice often referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’ in several states. State authorities have maintained that only illegal constructions are targeted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, clarified that being accused of a crime, even serious offenses like rape or terrorism, cannot justify bulldozer action.
He added,
“No, absolutely not… it also cannot be that the notice is issued just a day before; it must be given in advance.”
The bench highlighted that different laws apply to municipal corporations and panchayats, suggesting,
“There should also be an online portal so people are aware. Once you digitize it, there is a record.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta expressed concern that the court might be issuing directions based on a few instances where it was alleged that one community was being targeted.
The court’s stance reinforces its commitment to maintaining public order and safety by ensuring that unauthorized constructions, particularly those infringing on critical public spaces, are dealt with uniformly. This decision is part of a broader legal discourse on balancing religious freedoms with the need to preserve public infrastructure and uphold the rule of law.
The judgment, once delivered, will likely have significant implications for how encroachments, especially those involving religious entities, are handled across the country.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
