On 2nd September, the Supreme Court heard multiple petitions against the use of bulldozers and the government’s demolition of people’s homes who are suspected of crimes. Judges B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan challenged the legitimacy of demolishing a house solely because the owner was charged during the proceedings. “How can the house be demolished just because he is accused? Can’t be demolished even if he’s a convict. Even after telling SC Bar, we don’t find any change in attitude,” the apex court stated.
The court further declared its intention to establish pan-Indian guidelines in response to concerns that authorities in many states are using the demolition of accused’s homes as a form of punitive action. “We propose to lay down certain guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concern with regard to the issues raised are taken care of,” it conveyed.
The court also asked for draft recommendations from the parties so that it could formulate guidelines that would apply to all of India. Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi has been instructed to compile the proposals and deliver them to the court. The bench stated, “Let us try to resolve the issue on a pan-India basis,” as the petition was posted two weeks later on 17th September. It added, “Why can’t some guidelines be laid down? It should be put across states. This needs to be streamlined.”
Justice Viswanathan voiced, “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,” while talking about the demolition of a home in Udaipur, Rajasthan, after a student stabbed a classmate.
The bench emphasized that any property demolition must adhere to the law, even though they oppose unauthorized development on roadways or in other public areas. The court highlighted that a person’s residence cannot be demolished without following the legal process, even if they have been found guilty. “We are not for illegal constructions on road etc. But demolition of properties has to be in accordance with law,” it mentioned.
The centre’s lawyer, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, contended that homes are being demolished when laws are broken, prompting the top court’s remarks. “We act only if there are municipal law violations,” he stated to which Justice Gavai responded, “But looking at the complaints, we feel there is a breach. Though this is a position of law, it is being followed more in breach.” He added, “Let the suggestions come. We will issue guidelines on a pan-India basis.” Meanwhile, the court clarified it will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads.
Nonetheless, the Solicitor General argued that the court was being misled about the situation. “If you are accepting this, then we will issue guidelines based on this. How can demolition be just because he is an accused or even a convict,” asked Justice Gavai. “If construction is unauthorised, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will lay down a procedure. You are saying demolition only if violation of municipal laws. There is a need for guidelines, it needs to be documented,” the court announced.
Justice Viswanathan questioned why laws couldn’t be created to prevent these kinds of situations. “First issue notice, give time to answer, time to seek legal remedies, and then demolition,” he directed. “We will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads, that includes a temple, but there should be guidelines for demolition,” the bench stressed and declared, “Immovable properties can be demolished only based on the procedure.”
A number of petitions concerning the April 2022 demolition effort in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri were submitted to the Supreme Court in 2022. The petitioners pleaded for a ruling that authorities cannot use bulldozer activities as a form of punishment, even though the drive was ultimately stopped. Former Rajya Sabha MP and Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Brinda Karat filed one of these petitions, objecting to the demolitions executed in the Jahangirpuri area by the former North Delhi Municipal Corporation following the communal unrest during the Shobha Yatra processions in April.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, who represented some of the petitioners at the hearing in September 2023, expressed concerns about the growing practice of state governments tearing down the homes of criminal suspects. He alleged that under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to a home is a component of the right to life. Additionally, he urged the court to mandate the reconstruction of the homes that were bulldozed.
Two homeowners from Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan also petitioned the Supreme Court to stop their respective states from demolishing their houses and sought immediate hearings. A property in Rajasthan was demolished because the tenant’s son was accused of committing a crime and in Madhya Pradesh an ancestral home belonging to a joint family was destroyed by a bulldozer.
On the other hand, according to Tushar Mehta, notifications of violations were provided to the individuals in the incidents stated in the petition against the Uttar Pradesh Government. When the individuals did not reply, the unauthorized constructions were demolished following the procedures outlined in the municipal laws.
