Today, On 12th September, The Supreme Court criticized the practice of demolishing properties as a form of punishment, likening it to “bulldozing the laws of the country.” The court emphasized that mere allegations of involvement in a crime do not justify the destruction of a person’s property. It warned against using such actions as a tool for justice, stressing that due process must be followed.
New Delhi: Criticizing the practice of ‘bulldozer justice’ for the second time this month, the Supreme Court stated that alleged involvement in a crime does not justify the demolition of a property, warning that such actions undermine the rule of law.
A petition by Javed Ali Mehboobamiya Saeed from Gujarat’s Kheda district heard by a bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti. During the hearing, it revealed that municipal officials threatened to demolish Mr. Saeed’s family home following a trespassing case filed against him on September 1.
Read Also: Supreme Court: “Roof Over Head Basic Right”| Ruling on Demolition of Encroachments
Mr. Saeed’s lawyer presented evidence from the revenue records of Kathlal village, which indicated that his client co-owned the land. A resolution passed by the gram panchayat in August 2004 authorized the construction of the house, where three generations of the family had lived for over 20 years.
The lawyer referenced the Supreme Court’s September 2 order, which proposed guidelines to be followed before demolishing homes.
After hearing both sides, the bench emphasized that in a country governed by the rule of law, the actions of one family member cannot justify punitive measures against other members or their legally built residence.
Highlighting that only a case had been filed against Mr. Saeed, and it must be proven through due legal process, the bench stated,
“Alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolition of a property,”
The court remarked,
“We cannot overlook such demolition threats, which are unimaginable in a nation where the law is supreme. Such actions may be seen as bulldozing over the laws of the land.”
The court issued a notice to the Gujarat government, requesting a response within four weeks, and ruled that Mr. Saeed’s house cannot be demolished until further notice.
On September 2, a separate bench had raised concerns over demolitions simply because a property belonged to an accused or convicted individual, questioning,
“How can demolition happen just because he is an accused or even a convict?”
The bench stressed the need for procedures and guidelines for such actions, which they will further discuss on September 17.
The Supreme Court’s remarks on September 2 also ignited political exchanges.
Referencing the home district of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav remarked,
“Once the BJP is ousted after the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election and the Samajwadi government is formed, all bulldozers in the state will head toward Gorakhpur,”
Read Also: Muhammadi Jama Masjid| Petition Filed in SC to Stay Demolition of Delhi Mosque
In response, Yogi Adityanath fired back, saying that only those with a “bulldozer-like capability” could handle the machinery, adding,
“Not everyone’s hands can fit… it requires both heart and mind.”
Chief Minister Adityanath recognized as the pioneer of using bulldozers as a political symbol, even incorporating them into his campaign during the 2022 state elections.
Several other BJP-led states later adopted this tactic of demolishing properties of criminals to send a strong message against crime.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
