Supreme Court Rules: No Demolition Orders Even if a Person is Convicted

The Supreme Court questioned the legality of demolishing a house solely based on accusations or even convictions.

In Brief:

1. The Supreme Court is considering a plea challenging the use of bulldozers to demolish properties of accused individuals.
2. Justice Gavai queried how demolitions can occur if someone is only accused or convicted, highlighting that such actions cannot be justified solely on convictions.
3. The Court plans to establish guidelines for the demolition of illegal buildings.

On Monday, the Supreme Court reviewed a petition challenging the practice of demolishing properties associated with individuals accused of crimes. Justice BR Gavai remarked that demolishing a house cannot be justified merely because a person is accused or convicted, emphasizing the need for legal adherence in such actions.

Justice KV Viswanathan noted that while individuals may have problematic family members, demolishing a house based on such associations is not appropriate. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, argued that demolitions occur only for municipal law violations. However, the Court expressed concerns about possible breaches in adherence to legal procedures.

Justice Gavai indicated that while the law mandates certain procedures, the practice has often been inconsistent. Both justices agreed on the necessity for clear guidelines to ensure lawful demolitions across the country.

The Supreme Court will continue to address this issue on September 17, as it reviews several cases involving the controversial practice of demolishing properties linked to alleged criminal activities, often referred to as "bulldozer justice."

Another issue raised was the demolition of a house in Udaipur, Rajasthan, after a student living there was involved in stabbing his classmate. Justice Viswanathan commented, "If a person's son causes trouble, demolishing his home is not the right approach." The court stated it would revisit the matter on September 17 and invited suggestions on how to address it.

Justice Gavai noted that an affidavit from the Uttar Pradesh government specifies that property demolition must follow legally established procedures. He added, "We plan to establish guidelines on a national level to address the concerns raised. We commend Uttar Pradesh for its stance on this issue."

During the proceedings, there was a heated exchange between Mr. Mehta and Mr. Dave. Mr. Mehta remarked, "Some representatives from Jamiat have come before you. Those whose houses have been demolished have not approached us." He then directed a comment at Mr. Dave, saying, "If he wants to make it dirty..."

This prompted a sharp retort from Mr. Dave, who responded, "Don’t use derogatory language. You’re the Solicitor General; act accordingly."

Justice Gavai intervened, urging senior lawyers to maintain decorum and not turn the courtroom into a battleground.