In a recent case, Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed vs the State of Gujarat and Another, the Supreme Court noted that the alleged involvement of an individual in a crime does not constitute a valid justification for the demolition of property. Following the registration of an FIR against a relative of the petitioner, the municipal authorities had issued a threat to demolish the petitioner’s family residence. The Court noted that a “transgression” committed by a family member should not result in punitive actions against other family members or their lawfully constructed place of residence.
A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti observed: “Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme.”
The petitioner had presented the revenue records as evidence of their co-ownership of the land in question. They asserted that three generations of their family have resided in the houses on the land for the past two decades. The petitioner had pointed out that a complaint was filed under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The complaint, submitted to the deputy superintendent of police, had said that the law should take its course against the person accused of a crime. It was asserted by the petitioner that the Nagar Palika, or other entities associated with the Nagar Palika, should refrain from engaging in any threatening behaviour or taking any actions, such as utilizing a bulldozer to demolish the petitioner’s legally constructed and occupied residence.
The Supreme Court had stated: “In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence.” The Court also noted that the alleged crime must be proven through the appropriate legal proceedings in a court of law. Mere allegations of criminal involvement do not constitute sufficient grounds for the demolition of property. As a result, the Court noted that it cannot ignore such demolition threats in a country where the “law is paramount”, as such actions may be perceived as “overriding the laws of the land. In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner’s property is to be maintained by all concerned,” the Court ordered and issued notice.
A batch of petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in 2022 regarding the planned demolition drive scheduled for April 2022 in Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Although the drive was eventually halted, the petitioners sought a formal statement declaring that authorities lack the authority to employ bulldozer actions as a form of punishment.
One of these petitions was filed by former Rajya Sabha MP and CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, challenging the demolitions carried out by the erstwhile North Delhi Municipal Corporation in the Jahangirpuri area following the communal violence during the Shobha Yatra processions in April.
When the matter was heard in September 2023, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing a group of petitioners, expressed concerns regarding the escalating trend of state governments demolishing the residences of individuals accused of crimes. He strongly emphasized that the right to a home is an integral aspect of the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Furthermore, he urged the Court to issue an order mandating the reconstruction of the demolished homes.
Two urgent applications were also recently submitted in the top court seeking immediate protection against demolition actions carried out by authorities in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. One of the applications pertains to a case in Udaipur, where an individual’s residence was demolished due to allegations of a crime committed by his tenant’s son.
The Jamiat-Ulama-e-Hind organization asserted that numerous residences in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area were demolished shortly after the riots in April 2022 due to allegations that the occupants had incited the unrest.
In response, the apex court expressed that house of a person cannot be demolished merely because he is accused of a crime. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing the case. “It can’t be demolished even if he’s a convict… the demolition can be carried out only as per the procedure in accordance with law”, said Justice Gavai.
Supplementing the view of Justice Gavai, Justice Viswanathan remarked: “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”.
Referring to the “bulldozer actions” being carried out in several states, the Court issued an interim order mandating that no demolitions shall be carried out within the country without its explicit authorization. The Court, however, made it clear that this order will not apply to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies.
Justices Gavai and Viswanathan also issued a directive in response to a series of petitions alleging that various state governments were engaging in the punitive demolition of structures belonging to individuals accused of criminal offenses.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta raised objections to the Court’s order, asserting that the autonomy of statutory authorities should not be unduly restricted in this manner. Nevertheless, the bench firmly declined to reconsider its decision, emphasizing that there would be no significant consequences if the demolitions were temporarily halted for a period of two weeks. Justice Gavai posed the question: “Please refrain from taking any further action. What could possibly transpire within the span of 15 days?”
When Mehta submitted that he is unable to request authorities to hold their hands at the pan-India level, the bench stated that it has passed the directive invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
“We made clear we won’t come between unauthorised construction…But the executive can’t be a judge,” said Justice Gavai. Justice Viswanathan added: “Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of Constitution.”
The demolition campaign was initially launched in 2017 in Uttar Pradesh, under the governance of Yogi Adityanath. Since its inception, the campaign has expanded to encompass various other states governed by the BJP.
The leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party and former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati, urged the central government to establish uniform guidelines for the utilization of bulldozers in demolition activities. The absence of such guidelines has prompted the Supreme Court to intervene and issue rulings against these unlawful practices, she added.
She said the increase in the use of bulldozers should not be seen as symbols of the rule of law. “Despite bulldozer demolition not being the rule of law, the increasing trend of its use is a matter of concern. However, when the general public does not agree with the bulldozer or any other matter, then the Centre should come forward and make uniform guidelines for the whole country, which is not being done,” Mayawati wrote in a post on X.
“Otherwise, in the case of bulldozer action, the Hon’ble Supreme Court would not have had to intervene and fulfill the responsibility of the Central Government, which was necessary. The Central and State Governments must pay attention to the implementation of the Constitution and the rule of law,” she said.
Samajwadi Party leader and former chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Akhilesh Yadav expressed his gratitude to the Supreme Court for temporarily halting the demolition of structures using bulldozers across India until October 1 without prior permission from the Court. He emphasized that the use of bulldozers cannot be considered a just and appropriate form of justice.
“The bulldozer cannot be justice. The bulldozer was unconstitutional; it was used to scare people. The bulldozer was deliberately used to suppress the voice of the Opposition. I thank the Supreme Court for this directive that has stopped the bulldozers. The chief minister, Uttar Pradesh government, and the people of the BJP glorified the ‘bulldozer’ as if it were justice. They used to bring it to their rallies to create fear,” Yadav said. The bulldozer “can be a symbol of injustice, not justice,” he added.
—By Abhilash Kumar Singh and India Legal Bureau