The judgment also laid down several steps which the State authorities must follow before removing encroachments for the road widening process
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — The last uploaded judgment of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud strongly denounced the trend of “bulldozer justice”, whereby State authorities resort to the demolition of homes of persons, majority of them Muslims, as a punitive action for alleged involvement in crimes.
“Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter,” the Supreme Court judgment stated.
The judgment was passed in a case concerning the illegal demolition of the house of Manoj Tibrewal Aakash in Uttar Pradesh’s Maharajganj District in 2019. On November 6, the bench comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, after finding that the house was demolished without following the due procedure, had orally dictated an order directing the State to pay an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the petitioner. The State was further directed to initiate disciplinary inquiry against the officers liable for the illegal demolition.
In the judgment, which was uploaded on Saturday, the court has added certain strong observations against “bulldozer justice,” a LiveLaw report said on Saturday.
“Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high-handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the State, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments,” the CJI wrote.
The judgment also laid down several steps which the State authorities must follow before removing encroachments for the road widening process.
It may be noted that another bench of the Supreme Court (Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan) has reserved judgment on a batch of petitions seeking directions against the demolition of houses as a punitive action. On September 17, the same bench had passed an interim order halting demolitions across the country, except with the prior permission of the Supreme Court. The same direction was not however applicable to encroachments in public places, the report said.
Earlier, on September 12, another bench (Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti) had observed that alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolishing a legally constructed property, and the court cannot ignore such demolition threats in a nation governed by the rule of law. The observation was made while passing a status quo order with respect to a threat of demolition.
The apex court was hearing a suo motu writ petition registered in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by Manoj Aakash, whose Maharajganj house was demolished in 2019.
The court noted that the demolition was only preceded by a munadi (public announcement through the beat of drums). There was no written notice; and no disclosure of the basis of demarcation or the extent of the demolition to the occupiers. Even in respect of the area allegedly encroached no due process was followed and a written notice was not issued.
Even as per the case of the authorities, the encroachment was about 3.70 square meters. However, that was not a justification to demolish the entire property.
“From the above facts that have emerged, based on very disclosures made by the State of Uttar Pradesh, it is clear that the demolition was high-handed and without the authority of law,” the court observed.
The petitioner alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question. The court did not engage with that argument. “In any case, such high-handed and unilateral action by the State Government cannot be countenanced,” the court stated.
For full text of the judgment please click here
