SC Cracks Down On 'Bulldozer Justice': Orders No Demolitions, Even For Convicted Individuals

The Supreme Court expressed serious concerns today over the practice of "bulldozer justice," involving the demolition of homes belonging to individuals accused or convicted in criminal cases.

The court questioned the legality and fairness of such actions, proposing the establishment of pan-India guidelines to regulate the process of demolishing homes.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the petitioner, urged the court to issue a directive to prevent the indiscriminate use of bulldozers across the country. He highlighted the need for judicial oversight to ensure that such actions are not taken merely because a person is involved in a criminal case.

The bench, comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, echoed these concerns. Justice Gavai questioned the justification for demolishing a house solely because it belonged to an accused or even a convicted individual.

He remarked, "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?"

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the government, concurred with the court's view, stating that no immovable property should be demolished solely based on the accused's involvement in a criminal offense.

He clarified, "Such demolition can only happen if the structure is illegal."

However, Mehta also argued that the issue was being misrepresented before the court.

Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan emphasised the need for a clear and documented procedure before carrying out demolitions. They stressed that while illegal constructions should not be protected, there must be a standardised process to determine when and how demolitions should be carried out.

Justice Viswanathan suggested that there should be specific steps before a demolition, such as issuing a notice, providing time for a response, and allowing legal remedies to be sought before proceeding with the demolition.

The petitioners' counsel, including Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and CU Singh, cited specific instances of "bulldozer justice," such as the demolition of properties in Delhi's Jahangirpuri, where homes were razed because the son or tenant of the owner was involved in criminal activities.

CU Singh argued, "They demolished 50-60 year old homes because son or tenant of the owner is involved."

Another case referenced during the hearing involved the demolition of a house in Udaipur, Rajasthan, after a student living there stabbed his classmate.

Justice Viswanathan questioned the rationale behind such actions, stating, "If a man's son is a nuisance, demolishing his home is not the right way."

The court decided to revisit the matter on September 17 and invited suggestions on how to address the issue.

Justice Gavai mentioned an affidavit from the Uttar Pradesh government, affirming that immovable property can only be demolished according to legal procedures.

He stated, "We propose to lay down some guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concern raised is taken care of. We appreciate the stand taken by the state of UP."

The hearing also saw a heated exchange between Tushar Mehta and Dushyant Dave.

Mehta remarked, "Some Jamiat has come before your Lordships. Those whose houses have been demolished, they have not approached."

He then aimed a pointed comment at Dave, saying, "If he wants to make it dirty..." Dave responded sharply, "Don't say dirty... you are always hitting below the belt. You are the Solicitor General, act like it."

Justice Gavai intervened at this point, urging the senior lawyers to maintain decorum and not turn the courtroom into a battleground.