'No demolition even if a person is convicted': Supreme Court on bulldozer justice
PTC News Desk: The Supreme Court slammed 'bulldozer justice' on Wednesday and questioned how a house can be demolished simply because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the petitioner, asked the court to ensure that 'bulldozer justice' is not meted out across the country.
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, told the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan that no immovable property may be demolished only because the accused has been involved in a criminal offence. "Such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal," he added. However, the Solicitor General contended that the case is being misrepresented in court.
"If you accept this, we will issue guidelines based on it. How can demolition be justified simply because he is an accused or even a convict?" Justice Gavai asked.
"If the construction is illegal, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will set up a procedure. You say that demolition will only take place if municipal laws are violated. There is a need for guidelines, which must be documented," the bench stated.
Justice Viswanathan questioned 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 instructed.
The bench clarified that it is defending an illegal construction. "But there should be guidelines for demolition."
Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and CU Singh, representing the petitioners, cited the demolition exercise in Delhi's Jahangirpuri. The lawyers stated that in some cases, rented property was demolished. "They demolished 50-60-year-old homes because son or tenant of the owner is involved," Singh said.
Another issue that arose was the demolition of a residence in Rajasthan's Udaipur after a student staying there stabbed his classmate. "If a man's son is a nuisance, demolishing his home is not the right way," Justice Viswanathan stated. The court stated that it would hear the case again on September 17 and welcomed recommendations for resolving the situation.
- With inputs from agencies
