BREAKING| Supreme Court Pauses 'Bulldozer Actions', Orders That No Demolition Should Take Place Without Its Permission

While hearing a batch of pleas against "bulldozer actions" in various states, the Supreme Court today passed an interim order that no demolition should take place in the country without its permission.

The Court however clarified that this order won't be applicable to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or other public spaces (such as waterbodies).

"Till next date there shall be no demolitions without seeking leave of this court. However such order would not be applicable for unauthorised constructions on public streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines or public spaces," the Court ordered.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed this direction in a batch of petitions accusing various state governments of demolishing the buildings of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The Court posted the matters for next hearing on October 1.

Notably, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta raised objections to the Court's order, saying that the hands of statutory authorities can't be tied in this manner. However, the bench refused to relent, saying that "heavens won't fall" if the demolitions are stopped for two weeks. "Stay your hands. What will happen in 15 days?", Justice Gavai asked.

When the SG submitted that he can't ask authorities to hold hand pan-India, the bench said that it has passed the direction invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

"We made clear we won't come between unauthorised construction...But the executive can't be a judge, " said Justice Gavai. Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand, added, "Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of Constitution".

The observations were preceded by Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh submitting that demolitions are going on despite the Court expressing concerns about demolition actions during the last hearing. He submitted that (around 12 September) one party was accused of stone-pelting and on the same night, his house was demolished.

Referring to one of the cases before the Court, SG Mehta said that the notices for demolition were sent to the parties way back in 2022 and in the period between then and the demolition action in 2024, they committed certain offences. It was contended that the demolition and the involvement of the accused in the offences were not linked.

However, the bench questioned why the properties were suddenly demolished in 2024. Expressing that the Court was intending to issue directives to check the misuse of power to demolish unauthorised constructions, Justice Viswanathan said, "Till next date, there should be stay on demolition without leave of court."

The SG, however, argued that a "narrative" was being built that a particular community was being targeted. "The narrative has appealed to your lordships," he said. In response, Justice Viswanathan said, "outside noises" are not influencing the Court: "Outside noise not influencing us. We won't get into question of...which community...at this point. Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against ethos of the Constitution".

The bench also noted that after its last order (where it expressed its intention to lay down guidelines), certain statements were made by Ministers.

"After the order, there have been statements that bulldozer will continue..." Justice Gavai said.

"After 2 September, there has been grand standing and justification. Should this happen in our country? Should Election Commission be noticed? We will formulate directives," asked Justice Viswanathan.

It may be recalled, on the last date, the Court had expressed an intention to lay down pan-India guidelines to address the concerns that authorities in several States are resorting to the demolition of houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive action. To this end, parties were asked to submit draft suggestions which could be considered by the Court. Following the order, Jamiat Ulama I Hind submitted its suggestions, more about which can be read here.

Background

A batch of petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in 2022, relating to the demolition drive scheduled for April, 2022 in Delhi's Jahangirpuri. The drive was ultimately stayed, but the petitioners prayed for a declaration that authorities cannot resort to bulldozer actions as a form of punishment.

One of these petitions was by former Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, challenging the demolitions done by the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation in Jahangirpuri area after the communal violence during the Shobha Yatra processions in April.

When the matter was heard in September, 2023, Senior Advocate Dave (appearing for some of the petitioners) voiced concerns about the rising trend of state governments demolishing the homes of people accused of crimes, emphatically stressing that the right to a home was a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. He also urged that the Court should order the reconstruction of the houses demolished.

In the latest development, two applications seeking urgent relief against bulldozer/demolition action by authorities in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan were filed before the Court. One of these related to a case from Udaipur where a person's house was demolished because his tenant's son was accused of a crime.

Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind, on its part, argued that several houses of persons were demolished in Delhi's Jahangirpuri immediately after the riots in April 2022 on the allegation that they had instigated riots.

The state of Uttar Pradesh maintained that merely because a person is alleged to be part of an offence, it can't be ground for demolition. On facts of the cases mentioned by petitioners, it was said that notices for violations were sent, but since the concerned individuals did not respond, the unauthorised constructions were demolished following the process in municipal laws.

In response, the top Court expressed that house of a person cannot be demolished merely because he is accused of a crime. "It can't be demolished even if he's a convict...the demolition can be carried out [only] as per the procedure in accordance with law", said Justice Gavai. Supplementing the view, Justice Viswanathan remarked, "A father may have a recalcitrant son, but if the house is demolished on this ground...this is not the way to go about it".

Case Title: Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 (and connected matters)