New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will issue nationwide guidelines on demolition of properties and any religious structure situated in the middle of the road, be it a dargah or a temple, will have to be removed as public interest is paramount.
The court said that merely being an accused or guilty of a person cannot be a basis for demolishing the property. Along with this, the court reserved its decision on the petitions in which it has been alleged that properties including those of crime accused are being demolished in many states. A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan said that unauthorized construction, irrespective of religion, has to be removed.
The bench said that its September 17 order regarding no demolition of any property without its permission till October 1 will remain in force till the matter is decided by it (the apex court). The bench said, “Whatever we are determining, we are a secular country. “We are setting it for all citizens, all institutions, not for any particular community.” The court said, “On the first day, we had said that if there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it a dargah or a temple, it has to be removed, because public safety and public interest is paramount.” The bench also said that there cannot be a separate law for any particular religion.
The court said, “We are going to make it clear that merely because a person is accused, or even because a person has been convicted, cannot be a ground for demolition.” The top court made it clear that it will not protect against any encroachment on public places, roads, footpaths, government lands, forests, water bodies and other such places.
The bench said, “Whatever instructions we issue will be applicable to the entire country. We will ensure that our orders do not help those encroaching on any public place.” During the hearing, the bench said that notices for demolition of properties should be sent to their owners through registered post and should also be displayed on the online portal, so that digital records can be maintained.
The court also said that there may be a need for judicial monitoring on the veracity of the orders passed by the authorities.
The bench suggested that there should be a gap of 10 or 15 days between the demolition order and its implementation, so that people can make alternative arrangements.
The top court said, “…it is not pleasant to see women and children on the streets.” He said that if the demolition is done after 15 days, nothing is going to be lost. The top court is hearing petitions filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and others, seeking direction to various state governments to ensure that properties of accused in cases of riots and violence are no longer demolished. Go.
Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind had earlier filed a petition in the apex court regarding the demolition of some buildings in Jahangirpuri area of the national capital. At the beginning of the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, said that the Supreme Court has very rightly indicated that the Court will issue guidelines for the entire country.
He cited an earlier affidavit filed by the Uttar Pradesh government, which said that merely because a person is accused of being involved in a crime, his immovable property cannot be demolished.
The bench asked, “If he is convicted, can this be a ground?” Mehta replied, “This cannot happen.” He said, “Conviction can never be the basis of property.” The bench said that the real problem that needs to be addressed is that the authority takes action against encroachment of one property but does not initiate similar action against another structure.
Mehta told the bench that in the petition filed before the National Green Tribunal, it has been said that there is illegal encroachment on about seven lakh square kilometers of forest land. The lawyers appearing for the petitioners told the bench that there were many instances where demolition action was taken immediately after the FIR was registered against the accused. A lawyer said that people from almost every community have faced demolition action and their concern is related to the misuse of municipal laws as a “punitive measure”.