The Supreme Court has temporarily halted the practice of unauthorized demolition of private properties, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice," until October 1, when further arguments will be heard. This practice involves state governments demolishing homes or businesses owned by individuals accused of criminal activities, often without proper legal procedures. The court's decision is seen as a significant stand against the executive overreach associated with these actions.
A bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan emphasized that their ruling would not impact legally sanctioned demolitions. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, expressed concern that the ruling might interfere with legitimate demolitions.
However, the court reassured that "the heavens won't fall" if demolitions are paused until the next hearing, sending a clear message to state authorities to refrain from unauthorized actions. The court's ruling also included a warning against the "grandstanding" and "glorification" of such demolitions, with the court making it explicit that no demolition can occur without its permission before the next hearing.
The timing of this ruling is particularly significant due to the upcoming elections in Jammu and Kashmir and Haryana, where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seeks to retain power. The court hinted that the Election Commission might be notified if unauthorized demolitions continue, reflecting concerns about the misuse of such actions during election campaigns.
Not influenced by any narrative: SC
Solicitor General Mehta suggested that the court may have been influenced by a "narrative" opposing these demolitions, especially accusations that they disproportionately target certain communities. Mehta pointed to instances in Madhya Pradesh where demolitions affected properties owned by Hindus as well, suggesting that the practice is not religiously biased. The court firmly rejected the notion that it had been influenced by such a narrative, stressing that any instance of illegal demolition violates the ethos of the Indian Constitution.
The court reiterated that its ruling does not apply to the removal of encroachments on public property, such as roads, railway tracks, and water bodies. The primary focus of the case is on demolitions linked to criminal allegations, where accusations alone have been used as a justification for razing homes and businesses.
Previous Warnings from the Court
This is not the first time the court has intervened in this issue. Earlier this month, the court had already warned state governments about the legality of such demolitions. In a separate hearing, the court underscored that involvement in a criminal case cannot serve as grounds for demolishing an individual's property.
Such actions, the court observed, undermine the rule of law in the country. A key case discussed during that hearing involved municipal officers in Gujarat’s Kheda district threatening to demolish a man’s home after a trespassing charge was filed against him, highlighting concerns over the arbitrary use of demolitions.
In another instance, a demolition in Jaipur drew attention after a house was razed because the owner's son had been accused of stabbing a classmate. These actions have sparked public outcry and drawn political reactions, particularly between BJP leaders like Yogi Adityanath and opposition figures such as Akhilesh Yadav from the Samajwadi Party.
Future Guidelines
The court's current pause on demolitions comes with the intention of laying down clear guidelines to prevent arbitrary and illegal actions by state authorities.
The ruling is a crucial step in addressing growing concerns over the use of bulldozer justice, a practice that has been criticized for undermining the legal rights of individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities. The Supreme Court's intervention highlights the judiciary's role in checking the executive power when it oversteps its bounds.
No comments:
Post a Comment