The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday took a robust stance in opposition to hasty and illegal demolitions, stressing that any motion in opposition to non-public property should strictly adhere to correct procedures and be based on legitimate authorized grounds.
Expressing concern over the indiscriminate demolition actions, the highest court docket additionally laid down clear directives for all states and Union Territories (UTs) to comply with in street widening tasks that contain potential demolition of personal property, making it necessary for authorities to subject prior notices and grant a chance of listening to.
“You’ll be able to’t include bulldozers and demolish homes in a single day…there must be due course of adopted,” said a bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, because it condemned actions by the Uttar Pradesh authorities for bulldozing a non-public residence in July 2019 with out correct authorized discover or course of.
“That is fully high-handed. The place is the due course of adopted? Now we have an affidavit that claims no discover was issued. You solely went to the positioning and knowledgeable the folks by means of the beat of a drum… You can’t include bulldozers and demolish the homes,” the bench, additionally comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, instructed the counsel for the state.
Whereas the state’s counsel sought to justify the demolition saying greater than 100 properties had been introduced down for the street widening mission, the court docket retorted, “You say that he was an encroacher of three.7 sq. metre… We take it that there was an encroachment and we aren’t giving him a certificates for it. However how will you begin demolishing folks’s homes like that? That is full lawlessness…strolling into any person’s home and demolishing it.”
Ruling that the demolition was unlawful, the highest court docket ordered the Uttar Pradesh authorities to pay ₹25 lakh in punitive damages whereas additionally directing the chief secretary of the state to provoke felony motion in opposition to accountable officers.
This ruling follows a broader judicial development addressing the controversial apply of demolishing properties, usually with out discover, utilizing bulldozers. Critics argue that these actions are used punitively, with out regard for due course of, successfully sidestepping authorized protections. The apex court docket’s choice alerts a major stance on the matter, underscoring that property rights should not be undermined by state energy, even in instances of alleged encroachment.
By an order in September, one other bench of the Supreme Court docket had imposed a nationwide restraint on demolition actions, ruling that no demolition, together with of these accused or convicted of crime, ought to happen with out the court docket’s specific permission. Even because the court docket order included a caveat that the restraining order won’t apply to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway traces or water our bodies, the SC was emphatic that “heavens won’t fall” if the authorities throughout the nation stayed their arms in opposition to hasty demolitions in the intervening time because it highlighting the necessity for judicial oversight.
A special bench, in one other order in the identical month, stated that the rising development of demolishing properties of people accused of crimes, usually focusing on their households too and executed through bulldozers, is “inconceivable in a nation the place regulation is supreme, including that if not checked, this pernicious apply “could also be seen as working a bulldozer over the legal guidelines of the land.”
The petitioner within the current case alleged that his house was demolished with out prior discover or rationalization, following his public feedback on irregularities in a street building mission. The demolition, he claimed, was an act of retaliation by state officers.
The court docket, accepting the petitioner’s declare, discovered that there was no proof exhibiting the unique width of the freeway, nor was there any documentation that proved any authorized acquisition of land within the space previous to the demolition.
In response to this case, the apex court docket laid down directives for all states and UTs to comply with in street widening tasks, and specified that authorities should verify the present width of the street in query; subject a proper discover to any residents if encroachments are recognized, permitting them the chance to reply; if objections are raised, ship a reasoned choice with ample time for occupants to vacate, in compliance with rules of pure justice. The bench pressured that any choice in opposition to an objection should come within the type of a reasoned order, granting adequate time for compliance.
To make sure the rules are uniformly utilized, the bench directed its registrar to flow into copies of the order to all states and UTs. This nationwide directive goals to standardise due course of in instances the place demolition could also be obligatory for infrastructure tasks, reminiscent of street widening, whereas defending the rights of affected residents.
To make sure, a bench led by justice Bhushan R Gavai, on September 2, initiated steps in direction of issuing pan-Indian pointers on demolitions, noting that demolishing properties of accused individuals with out following authorized procedures violates elementary rights and due course of. Underlining that even in instances of unlawful constructions, demolitions should adhere to correct authorized protocols, this bench had sought solutions from varied stakeholders on formulating complete rules, whereas reiterating that no particular person’s property must be destroyed solely because of their or a member of the family’s alleged involvement in felony actions. Following an in depth listening to, the court docket has stated, it could formulate a uniform authorized framework to forestall such arbitrary actions.
