Today, On 1st October, The Supreme Court announced that it will establish nationwide guidelines on the demolition of properties. The court emphasized that merely being an accused or even a convicted individual cannot justify the demolition of their property. This move aims to ensure that due process is followed in such cases, preventing arbitrary or unlawful demolitions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will establish nationwide guidelines regarding the demolition of properties, including religious structures situated on public roads.
The court emphasized that any structure, whether a ‘dargah’ or a temple, located in the middle of a road “must go,” as public interest takes precedence.
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, pointed out that the demolition of property cannot be justified solely because someone is an accused or even a convicted individual. The court reserved its judgment on a series of petitions alleging that properties, including those belonging to crime suspects, were being demolished across various states.
The bench further noted that unauthorized structures, regardless of the individual’s religion or belief, must be removed if they obstruct public spaces or roads.
The Supreme Court bench stated that its earlier order from September 17, which halted the demolition of properties without the court’s approval until October 1, will remain in effect until a final decision is reached.
The bench emphasized,
“Whatever we are laying down, we are a secular country. We are laying it down for all citizens and institutions, not for any particular community,”
It reiterated its stance from the initial hearing, saying,
“If there is any religious structure in the middle of a road, whether it’s a ‘dargah’ or a temple, it has to go because public safety and public interest are paramount.”
The court also stressed that there cannot be different laws for different religions.
The bench added,
“We are going to make it clear that merely being an accused or even a convict cannot be grounds for demolition,”
The Supreme Court made it clear that it would not protect any encroachment on public spaces such as roads, footpaths, government lands, forests, or water bodies.
Ensuring that its order would not support encroachers of public property. The bench stated,
“Whatever directions we issue will be applicable pan-India,”
During the hearing, the bench suggested that notices for property demolitions should be sent via registered mail to the owners and also be posted on an online portal to maintain a digital record. The court observed that judicial oversight may be necessary to verify the accuracy of orders issued by authorities.
The bench proposed a 10 to 15-day window between the issuance of demolition orders and their execution to allow people time to make alternate arrangements, noting,
“It is not a happy sight to see women and children on the roads.”
The court emphasized that a delay in demolition would not result in any significant loss.
The Supreme Court hearing petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, seeking instructions to prevent state governments from demolishing properties of individuals accused of rioting and violence. Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind previously petitioned the court regarding demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area, arguing that no demolitions should occur without due legal process and prior notice.
At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, agreed with the Supreme Court’s intention to establish nationwide guidelines for demolitions. He referred to an affidavit by the Uttar Pradesh government, stating that merely being accused of a crime should never justify the demolition of a person’s immovable property.
The bench asked,
“Even if someone is convicted, can that be a ground?”
Mehta responded,
“It can’t be. Conviction can never be a ground for demolition.”
He further suggested that most municipal laws include provisions for issuing notices, which should be served by registered post to the property owner rather than simply posting them on the property.
Mehta emphasized that any notice must specify the particular law violation being addressed. The bench noted the challenge of authorities taking action against one property for violations while ignoring similar infractions elsewhere.
Mehta also mentioned a petition before the National Green Tribunal, highlighting that approximately seven lakh square kilometers of forest land is illegally encroached upon. He stressed the need to ensure illegal encroachers or those with unauthorized constructions do not receive “undue advantage.”
Mehta added,
“I will submit my note with suggestions. Your lordships may avoid anything that might amend or add to existing laws.”
Petitioners’ lawyers argued that demolitions executed immediately after FIRs filed against individuals, raising concerns about the misuse of municipal laws as a punitive tool. One counsel pointed out that demolition actions had affected individuals from almost every community, with cases where notices were not properly served before the demolition occurred.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had remarked that even a single instance of illegal demolition violates the “ethos” of the Constitution.