Bulldozers cannot run over the law: SC bans bulldozer demolitions

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court issued an interim order prohibiting authorities from demolishing properties associated with individuals suspected of criminal activities, commonly referred to as "bulldozer justice," without obtaining prior permission from the court, Bar and Bench reported.

The decision came amid growing concerns over the use of extrajudicial measures to punish alleged offenders, particularly in cases involving communal tensions.

The court clarified that its order would not impede actions taken to remove unauthorized constructions. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan stated that the interim ban would remain in effect until at least October 1, when the matter is scheduled for further hearing.

"Till next date there shall be no demolitions without seeking leave of this court. However, such order would not be applicable for unauthorized constructions on public streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines, water bodies or public spaces," the court directed.

The bench was hearing two petitions urging the court to instruct both the Central Government and state authorities to refrain from demolishing the homes or shops of individuals involved in criminal proceedings. The petitioners argued that such demolitions constituted an illegal punitive measure that undermined the rule of law.

In a previous hearing, the Supreme Court had expressed its disapproval of the trend of bulldozer demolitions, asserting its intention to establish guidelines to address the issue of "bulldozer justice."

The bench noted that it appreciated the stance taken by the Uttar Pradesh government, which asserted that demolitions could only proceed if a structure was deemed illegal. However, the court's order was issued despite strong objections from Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta, who argued that the court was being influenced by a "false narrative" that such demolitions were exclusively targeting one religious community, namely Muslims.

Mehta contended, "Give us instances, we will give answers on how it was not illegal demolitions. We have to demolish all outside narratives ... Only because one community is building narrative through them. Let them bring one instance of illegality. Affected parties don't come because they know it was illegal and they got notices, and they come in PIL."

The Solicitor General's submissions were countered by Senior Advocates CU Singh and MR Shamshad, who represented the petitioners and highlighted the ongoing nature of the demolitions, emphasising the gravity of the situation. While SG Mehta requested an adjournment, the petitioners' counsel urged the court to schedule a prompt hearing.

Justice KV Viswanathan addressed the concerns by proposing, "We will say, till the next date of hearing no demolitions without leave of this court. We are not on one community ... We are only on streamlining directions, so no one can misuse the law and indulge in any Constitutional infirmity." Justice Gavai further added that the government should submit a comprehensive affidavit outlining its arguments, reiterating that the executive branch could not assume the role of a judge in matters of demolition.

SG Mehta voiced his opposition to the interim order, arguing that it would hinder authorities from fulfilling their legal obligations. "This is the magnitude. I cannot tell municipalities. I have nothing to say. Your lordships have prevented statutory authorities from exercising their rights!" he exclaimed. The bench's decision serves as a critical reminder of the balance between law enforcement and the protection of individual rights.

In a separate ruling, another bench of the Supreme Court recently underscored the principle that "bulldozers cannot run over the law," reinforcing the necessity for legal oversight in such matters.