SC appreciates UP’s strict adherence to ‘legal criteria’ for demolitions
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday criticised the growing trend of demolishing homes or properties of individuals accused of crimes, describing it as a case of “bulldozer justice”.
The top court also announced that it would establish guidelines to address this issue.
However, the court also acknowledged and appreciated the position taken by the state of Uttar Pradesh, which asserted that demolitions can be done only if the structure in question is deemed illegal.
“We propose to lay down some guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concern raised is taken care of. We appreciate the stand taken by the state of Uttar Pradesh. We find that it is appropriate that the counsel for the parties can give suggestions so that the court can frame guidelines which are applicable on pan-India basis,” the apex court noted in its order on Monday.
While commending Uttar Pradesh’s position, the court was referring to the affidavit submitted by the Uttar Pradesh government, which stated that demolitions would be conducted strictly in accordance with the law.
“No immovable property cannot be demolished just because the accused is involved in a criminal offence, and such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal,” Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, said.
Appearing for Uttar Pradesh government, Mehta referred to an earlier affidavit filed by the state in the matter.
He said the affidavit states that merely because a person has been alleged to have been a part of some offence can never be a ground for demolition of his immovable property.
A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan also noted that such demolition cannot be allowed solely because a person is accused of a criminal offence.
“How can demolition be (carried out) just because (a person) is an accused,” the court asked.
The top court was hearing two petitions regarding demolitions allegedly carried out without notice and as acts of “revenge”.
The petitions were submitted by Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh.
Khan, a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur, claimed that his house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17.
This occurred following communal clashes in Udaipur, during which several vehicles were set on fire and markets were closed.
The unrest began after a Muslim schoolboy allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate, who later succumbed to his injuries, leading to the issuance of a prohibitory order.
Khan is the father of the accused schoolboy.
Similarly, Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh alleged that both his house and shop were unlawfully demolished by the state administration.