New Delhi:
Public safety is paramount and any religious structure encroaching upon a road, water bodies, or rail tracks must go, the Supreme Court said today. The court stressed that India is a secular country and its directions for bulldozer action and anti-encroachment drives will be for all citizens, irrespective of their religion.
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes. The trend, which has caught on in several states, is often referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’. The state authorities have, in the past, maintained that only illegal structures were demolished in such cases.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for three states — Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Asked if being accused in a criminal case can be a ground for facing bulldozer action, Mr Mehta replied, “No absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism. Like my lord said it cannot also be that the notice issued is stuck one day before, it has to be in advance. One of the concerns was that notice has to be issued… most municipal laws, depending on the subject matter they are dealing with, have provisions for issuance of notice. Your Lordships may read that a notice be issued via registered post.”
The bench said there are different laws for municipal corporations and panchayats. “There should also be an online portal so people are aware, once you digitise it there is a record.”
The Solicitor General then said he was worried that the court was issuing directions based on a few instances alleging that one community was being targeted.
“We are a secular country and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community. Of course, for encroachment we have said… if it is on a public road, footpath, water body or railway line area, it has to go, public safety is paramount. If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurudwara or dargah or temple, it cannot obstruct public,” the court said.
Justice Gavai said, “For unauthorised construction, there has to be one law, it is not dependent on religion or faith or beliefs.”
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover appears for UN Rapporteur and makes arguments on housing availability. The Solicitor General objected. “I know for whom they are, we don’t want this to internationalise. Our Constitutional courts are powerful enough and our government is assisting non-adversarialy. We don’t need an international agency to come in,” he said.
Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, said his only point was that bulldozer action not be used as a crime-fighting measure.
Mr Mehta said bulldozer action against minorities will be “far and few between”. The bench responded, “It is not some or two persons, the figure is 4.45 lakh.”
The court said it would make clear that being accused in a crime cannot be the basis for the demolition of property and it can only be done in cases of violation of civic rules.
