Supreme Court hearing on bulldozer action updates: Bench extends stay on illegal demolitions

SC reserves the case for judgment. 

Extends its interim order of September 17 staying illegal bulldozer demolitions across the country.

SC does not allow any interventions in the bulldozer demolitions case, including one by U.N. Special Rapporteur. 

Justice Viswanathan suggests videographing the demolition so that the jurisdictional court would later on know whether the measure was proportionate. 

Justice Gavai said any violation of our proposed order would amount to contempt. 

Mr. Hegde asks whether the people whose property is being demolished should run after the bulldozers!

Justice Viswanathan said restitution or compensation would follow contempt proceedings.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde says it is a display of power through a bulldozer, like power derived from the barrel of a gun. It is meant as a spectacle with well-known TV anchors giving bytes from the cabins of the bulldozers.

Such reprisals is unknown to law, he says. The attitude is “demolish first and explain later”, Hegde submits.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind said show-cause notice should be issued to the owners as well as occupiers. Prior notice of demolition should give a period for response of 60 days. Owners would have a right to engage a lawyer, to present evidence that construction is legal, the opportunity to compound the offence, etc

Municipal laws cannot be misused post-facto for crime-fighting, says Advocate Singh.

SC has said no grandstanding on the basis of bulldozer demolitions. People are fighting elections on this basis. It has become a tool, Mr. Singh says.

He pushes for safeguards, especially prior notice in the cases of accused who are incarcerated. Prior notice of demolition should be served in jail. Municipal laws are are municipal purposes and not for crime-fighting, he argues.

Senior advocate C.U. Singh says, ‘We are not for the lawful use of municipal laws, we are only against the abuse of these laws.’

Mr. Singh points out the case of an accused in a case of stone-pelting on a Ganesh Pandal. The demolition of his home happened the same day.

Justice Gavai says the court would not intervene in the case of encroachments into public lands, streets and roads.

He clarifies that the SC has no intention to protect encroachments on public roads, streets, footpaths, etc.

“Our order will not help encroachers on public roads. We realise that footpaths have to be de-cluttered,” Mr. Mehta says.

Justice Viswanathan says even in unauthorised structures, 10 to 15 days should be given for the occupants to find an alternative home. It is a sad sight to see women, children and the elderly pushed into the streets even in the case of unauthorised constructions, he said.

The Bench clarifies that judicial oversight does not mean making a special tribunal for demolition cases or having a retired judge pouring over complaints. The Bench says it intended a jurisdictional court to apply its mind.

Mr. Mehta says there is a danger of opening a pandora’s box.

SG Mehta voices his apprehension that the court’s intervention or order should not encourage illegal encroachments and stop demolition of unauthorised structures completely.

Justice Viswanathan says the figure is 4.45 lakh demolitions in the last few years. It is not just “two percent” as Mr. Mehta says.

Mr. Mehta says 10% or 15% cases of illegal demolitions should not be used to justify genuine demolitions of unauthorised structures across the country.

Justice Gavai made it clear that somebody being an accused or convict is no ground to demolish his home. 

“We make it clear that there should be proper notice, chance of hearing in case somebody is found to be in violation of building laws,” he said.

SC tells advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for UN Rapporteur for Adequate Housing Balakrishnan Rajagopal, who is seeking to intervene, that India has enough experts. 

Mr. Mehta says “we do not need any international agency to assist”.

Mr. Mehta says one person committing an offence and a few demolitions should not lead to laying down the law. 

Justice Gavai said wherever there is encroachment, the building has to go. 

Senior advocate C.U. Singh, for petitioners, say there should be proper hearing before any action is taken.

Justice K.V. Viswanathan illustrates that if there are two illegal buildings, but only one structure is demolished, and a criminal offence was alleged against the relative or owner of the people staying in the building razed, then the issue of discrimination will arise as two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. Mehta drew the court’s attention to the communal colour given to demolition, and said that one person committing an offence and a few demolitions should not lead to laying down the law. “This is a secular country. The laws apply equally to all communities,” Justice Gavai said while questioning “who said wherever there is encroachment, the building has to go?” 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 1, 2024) has said that conviction cannot lead to retributive demolition of private property. It also went on to order framing of guidelines against bulldozer demolitions by States as a punitive measure.