The Supreme Court of India extended its stay on demolitions across the country, except in cases of encroachments on public spaces. The decision came as part of a continuation of the hearing on what has been called the "bulldozer justice" case, which has seen the court take steps to regulate demolition actions conducted by state authorities.
In the session held on October 1, the two-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan extended the earlier order from September 17. This order prevented unauthorised demolitions of private properties without judicial approval, ensuring that such demolitions could not take place without due legal process. However, the exception was made for structures encroaching on public roads, railway lines, footpaths, and water bodies.
The bench focused on ensuring that any measures taken would be consistent across India, respecting the secular nature of the country and avoiding any discrimination based on religion or community. The discussion involved numerous arguments, including the need for transparency, fairness, and judicial oversight in any demolition process.
Representatives of states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, expressed concerns about the possible impact of new guidelines from the court. These concerns highlighted the complexities faced by the state governments in managing unauthorised constructions and implementing eviction notices.
The petitioners, represented by advocate C U Singh, argued that demolition notices have often not given enough time for affected individuals to take necessary actions or make alternative arrangements. This was a major point of contention, as Singh sought longer notice periods to ensure that those facing eviction or demolition have a fair chance to respond.
In response to this, Justice K V Viswanathan suggested that before demolitions are carried out, the entire process could be recorded through videography. This would serve as evidence, ensuring transparency and helping the courts assess whether compensation might be needed if there was wrongdoing or unnecessary force applied. Such videographic records would add a layer of accountability to the entire demolition process.
There was also discussion on the methods used for issuing demolition notices. One of the petitioners argued that public notices should be issued in newspapers, ensuring that they cannot be backdated. The concern was to maintain fairness and transparency in the issuing of such notices.
To this, the bench suggested that using registered posts could serve the same purpose since they are also time-stamped and cannot be manipulated. Additionally, the idea of setting up an online portal to manage these notices was floated to bring about more transparency.
The Supreme Court emphasised that whatever guidelines it eventually establishes will be for the whole of India and will be secular, meaning no community or religion would be unfairly targeted.
This assurance was particularly significant, as the court was concerned with preventing any discriminatory demolition practices that might impact certain communities disproportionately. The bench made it clear that the court's orders would aim to protect people from arbitrary actions without providing shelter to encroachers who are misusing the system.
The use of bulldozers to demolish properties accused of being involved in criminal activity has gained attention in recent times. While the state governments have defended this practice as a measure against illegal constructions, critics have termed it as "bulldozer justice," suggesting that it is often used selectively and can unfairly target certain communities or individuals.
The Solicitor General also countered that the percentage of demolitions conducted as punitive actions against accused criminals accounted for less than 2% of the total demolitions carried out across the country. The main intent, as the state governments argued, was to address illegal constructions that violated zoning laws or posed risks to public safety.
Justice Viswanathan noted that selective demolition is problematic, especially when it seems to be linked to someone's criminal status. He pointed out the inconsistency in demolishing one structure while leaving another, similar one intact.
This highlighted the need for judicial oversight, particularly when demolitions were being perceived as punitive measures rather than enforcement of land-use regulations.
Justice B R Gavai reiterated that there should be uniformity in how unauthorised constructions are handled, regardless of which community is involved. This emphasis on a common standard ensures that no one group is either unfairly targeted or given leniency in such matters.
The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of transparency regarding the timing of demolition orders. It stated that there must be a gap between the issuance of the final demolition order and the actual demolition.
This time frame would allow the affected individuals to make alternative arrangements, such as finding a place to relocate or preparing a legal defence. This measure aims to mitigate the sudden impact demolitions can have on people, particularly those from vulnerable sections of society.
Follow us
