New Delhi, September 2.
The Supreme Court on Monday spoke out against bulldozing of property of any accused awaiting trial for any criminal offence or even that of a convict. A convict is a person who has been found guilty by the legal system.
The criminal law doesn’t provide for bulldozing of property of any accused or convict, but this has been increasingly used in recent years by local administrations with impunity.
Several states governments have carried out bulldozer drives in peak winter in areas known for their harsh climate. Most of the demolitions have been in economically weaker areas.
This impunity may soon end if the top court observances in the case today are anything to go by.
Under the law, the only cases in which property can be bulldozed is when it has been built on public spaces or land or has been built unauthorisedly in violation of municipal laws.
The bench wondered how this was being done and asked the government to ensure that even in case of illegal encroachments the due process is followed.
“How can demolition be just because he is an accused or even a convict,” Justice B.R. Gavai observed. He was sitting alongside Justice K.V. Vishwanathan.
Justice Vishwanathan said that even in cases where the structure was built unauthorisedly or was on public space, the process would have to be followed.
Justice Vishwanath observed that the property owner must be given adequate notice to explain himself and given time to seek legal remedies before demolition is done.
That in fact has been a major criticism of the demolitions carried out in many parts of the country by overzealous administrators — that the authorities do not give the hapless citizens time to move the courts for relief, effectively reducing their rights to nothing.
Many studies have shown that the rich and the powerful manage to regularise their illegal encroachments or structures. Possibly because they have the clout and the power.
The poor, despite a series of court rulings that they cannot be evicted without any alternate housing, have been left at the mercy of apathetic governments. There is also no concept of collective punishment that can be meted out to a whole family for the crime of one, critics say.
A welfare state should be building more of low-cost housing so that people don’t have to live in slums and not be bulldozing whatever little accommodation they have, other critics say.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that while no immovable property can be demolished only because a person has been involved in a criminal offence, any structure that is illegal can be demolished.
He was suggesting possibly that in all cases that governments had acted the property of the accused or convict was unauthorised or illegal and the crime had opened the eyes of the administration to it.
The court was dealing with pleas to address the issue of bulldozer justice being dispensed in many parts of the country. The petitions were argued by former Supreme Court Bar Association president and senior advocate Dushyant Dave and senior advocate C.U. Singh.
They pointed out recent instances in which properties over 5 decades old were demolished because the tenant or the son of the owner was involved in some criminal offences. “If a man’s son is a nuisance, demolishing his home is not the right way,” Justice Vishwanathan observed.
The bench sought practical suggestions from all parties to frame pan-India guidelines to prevent misuse of bulldozers to mete out instance justice. It will hear the case again on September 17.
The court will most probably lay down the process to be followed in case of demolition of illegal structures. Currently, the process is different in different laws and states. The bench clarified in the hearing that it will not protect any illegal structures, including temples, but there ought to be guidelines for demolition.
