The Supreme Court of India has made a significant ruling regarding encroachments by religious structures on public spaces. During a hearing on Tuesday, the top court emphasised that public safety is paramount and any religious structure, whether it be a temple, dargah, or gurdwara, that obstructs roads or railway tracks must be removed.
This decision was made in the context of petitions challenging the demolition of properties belonging to people accused of crimes. The court extended its interim order, which bars demolitions across the country without prior judicial approval.
The Supreme Court’s bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, highlighted the secular nature of India, stressing that its ruling on demolitions and anti-encroachment drives would apply uniformly, regardless of the religious or community affiliations of the structures.
Justice Gavai remarked that “if there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, it cannot obstruct the public.” The judges made it clear that safety and accessibility for the public are of utmost importance and religious considerations cannot justify encroachments.
The issue of transparency also came up during the proceedings. The bench suggested that all notices and orders regarding demolitions should be digitised and made available online.
This, according to the court, would ensure more transparency and accountability in the process, making it accessible to all stakeholders and the general public.
Earlier, on September 17, the court had barred demolitions across the country until October 1, except in cases involving encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies. The intention behind this order was to prevent arbitrary actions and ensure due process.
During the hearing, the court addressed the matter of bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of criminal activities. The Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, represented the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh.
He was questioned on whether being an accused in a criminal case could be grounds for facing bulldozer action. Mehta firmly responded, stating that such actions could not be justified even for those accused of serious crimes such as rape or terrorism. He also agreed with the court's observation that any notice issued for demolition should be given well in advance, not merely a day before the action is taken.
The court expressed concern about selective demolitions, especially when illegal constructions are demolished based on the owner's criminal background. Justice Viswanathan stated that it is “problematic” when illegal structures are selectively targeted, particularly when the decision is influenced by the fact that the owner is an accused in a criminal case. He raised the issue of potential biases in carrying out demolitions and called for judicial oversight to ensure fairness.
Justice Gavai reiterated that there should be a consistent approach to dealing with unauthorised constructions, regardless of the community involved. He stated, “For unauthorised constructions, there has to be one law, not dependent on community.” This remark underscores the importance of uniformity in dealing with such matters, irrespective of the religion or community of those involved.
The Solicitor General, however, argued that the petitioners' claims of demolitions being used as a punitive measure represented less than 2% of the actual demolitions carried out across the country.
This statement was intended to indicate that the majority of demolitions were conducted based on legal grounds, not as punitive actions against individuals accused of crimes.
As the Supreme Court reserved its order, it proposed that a specific time frame should be established between issuing a final demolition order and carrying out the demolition itself. This period would give the affected individuals time to make alternative arrangements, thereby mitigating the immediate impact of the demolition on their lives.
The court's decision reflects a delicate balance between maintaining public safety, ensuring due process, and respecting the secular fabric of the country. The emphasis on transparency, consistency, and judicial oversight indicates a commitment to ensuring that actions taken by the authorities are just and not arbitrary.
The digitization of demolition orders, as suggested by the court, could also represent a step toward enhancing accountability and preventing misuse of power.
The interim order barring demolitions, except in cases involving public roads, railway lines, and water bodies, demonstrates the court's attempt to prevent unwarranted actions against vulnerable individuals. By reserving its final judgement, the Supreme Court seems to be weighing all considerations carefully before issuing a comprehensive ruling on the matter.
The ruling has broader implications for how encroachments, especially those involving religious structures, are handled across the country. It reaffirms that public spaces must remain accessible to all and that safety cannot be compromised, regardless of religious sentiments.
At the same time, it places a significant responsibility on the authorities to act fairly and transparently, ensuring that no community feels targeted or discriminated against.
The ongoing legal proceedings and the court's interim directives highlight the complexity of addressing encroachments, especially when they involve sensitive issues like religion.
The Supreme Court's intervention aims to ensure that the rule of law is upheld while respecting the diverse fabric of Indian society. As the final judgement is awaited, the country watches closely, understanding that the outcome could set a precedent for how similar situations are handled in the future.
Follow us
