New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that demolishing a house merely because the person living in it is accused or convicted in a criminal case would amount to “collective punishment” to the entire family. The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan made these observations in its important decision. In this decision, guidelines have been laid down for the entire country on demolition of properties.
The court said that when a particular structure is suddenly selected for demolition and other similar structures located in the same area are not touched, “this must be done with great malice.” The bench said that construction of a house is an aspect of socio-economic rights and for an ordinary citizen it is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations.
The top court said, “In our view, if permission is given to demolish a house in which several persons of a family or a few families live, merely on the ground that a person living in such a house is either an accused or If convicted in a criminal case, it would be tantamount to giving collective punishment to the entire family or families living in such a building.” The Court said that the Constitution and criminal jurisprudence will never allow this.
Noting that the right to shelter is one of the aspects of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, the top court said that a house is not just a property but it provides stability, security and future to a family or It symbolizes the collective expectations of individuals.
The bench said in its 95-page judgment, “Any person gets satisfaction from having a roof over his head. This brings respect and a feeling of belonging. If it is to be snatched away, the authority should feel that this is the only option.” The court noted the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Center and some states, that in some cases it may be mere coincidence that properties in violation of local municipal laws also happen to be owned by the accused persons. Do it.
The bench said, “In cases where the authorities arbitrarily select buildings or structures (for demolition) and it is established that immediately before initiating such action the occupant was involved in a criminal case. If it was found, then it can be inferred that the real purpose of such action was not to demolish the illegal house, but to punish the accused without hearing in the court.” The Court said that there is no doubt that such a presumption can be rebutted, but the authorities will have to convince the Court that they do not intend to punish the accused person by demolishing the house.
The bench said that “principles of rule of law” should also be considered in respect of houses which are required to be demolished due to violation of local laws. The court said, “There may be some unauthorized constructions on which a compromise can be reached.” “There may be some structures that require removal of only a portion of the structure.” The bench said that in such cases an extreme step like demolishing the property would be disproportionate. The apex court gave its verdict on petitions requesting it to frame guidelines on demolition of properties across the country.
Supreme Court puts brakes on bulldozers, issues guidelines on demolition of properties
The Supreme Court compared the recent practice of ‘bulldozer justice’ to a state of anarchy and issued guidelines for the country saying that no property should be demolished without giving a show cause notice and the affected people would be given 15 days to answer. Time of day should be given.
The court said that the authorities cannot punish citizens by demolishing their property without following due procedure. The court termed such excesses as “arbitrary” and said that they need to be dealt with strictly. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan termed as “horrific” the scene of a building being demolished with a bulldozer and women, children and elderly people rendered homeless overnight.
In its 95-page judgment, the bench said, “If the authority acts like a judge and imposes the penalty of demolition of a house on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, then it is a violation of the principle of ‘separation of powers’. ” It said, “The horrific scene of demolition of the building by bulldozers is a reminder of a chaotic situation when the authorities fail to adhere to the basic principles of civil justice and act without following the principle of due process.” , where ‘only the strong will win’.”
The bench said that there is no place for such arbitrary actions in the Constitution, which is based on the foundation of rule of law. Issuing a series of directions, the bench said that its directions will not apply to cases where there is any unauthorized structure on any public place such as a road, street, footpath, railway track or any river or water body and will also not apply to cases where the court Has ordered demolition.
The bench said, “No action to demolish (the property) should be taken without issuing a show cause notice.” The reply to this notice will have to be given within the period prescribed as per the local municipal body law or within 15 days of service of the notice. The apex court also said that constitutional ethos and values do not permit such abuse of power and such audacity cannot be tolerated by the court.
The bench said, “The authorities cannot become judges and decide that the accused person is guilty and hence he should be punished by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. “Such an action by an officer would be a violation of his limits.” The top court said that in order to remove the apprehensions prevailing in the minds of citizens regarding arbitrary use of powers by state officials, we consider it necessary to issue some instructions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any ‘decree’ or order necessary for doing complete justice in any case pending before it. While delivering the judgement, the bench said that even after the demolition order is passed, some time should be given to the affected parties so that they can challenge the order at the appropriate forum.
The court said that even in cases where people do not want to oppose the demolition order, they should be given sufficient time to vacate the house and make other arrangements. It said, “It does not look good that women, children and sick people are made homeless overnight. If the authorities stop for some time, the sky will not fall.” The bench directed that a notice be sent to the property owner by registered post and in addition, the notice should also be pasted on the outer wall of the property.
The bench said, “The time limit of 15 days will start from the date of receipt of the notice, which has been mentioned above.” The bench directed that as soon as the show cause notice is duly served, its information should be sent to the office of the concerned Collector or District Magistrate digitally through e-mail.
It says, “The Collector/District Magistrate will appoint a nodal officer and also provide an e-mail address and inform all municipal bodies and other authorities in charge of building regulation and demolition.” The notice should give detailed information about the nature of unauthorized construction, specific violations and grounds for demolition.
Justice Gavai started his judgment with these lines of the famous poet Pradeep, “Everyone lives in this dream of having their own house, having their own courtyard, the desire of the human heart is that the dream of having a house should never go away.” The Supreme Court gave this ruling on petitions requesting to set guidelines for demolition of properties in the country. The court had reserved its decision in this case on October 1. It was alleged in several petitions that properties of the accused and others were being demolished in different states.
‘Never lose the dream of a house’: Poet Pradeep’s lines mentioned in the court’s decision
Supreme Court judge Justice BR Gavai on Wednesday quoted the lines of famous poet Pradeep to underline that everyone desires to have their own house and never wants to lose this dream. Issuing nationwide guidelines on demolition of properties, Justice Gavai began the 95-page judgment with these lines from the poet, “Apna ghar ho, apna aangan ho, iss khwab mein ki khwab sakoni jeet hai, manas ke dil ki ki ye I wish that the dream of owning a house never goes away.” The bench said, “Famous poet Pradeep has described the importance of Ashiana in this way.” Justice Gavai wrote the judgment for the bench. The bench also includes Justice KV Vishwanathan.
The Court said that every person and family dreams of a house. The bench said, “A house symbolizes the collective expectations of stability and security of every family or individuals.” The bench said that an important question is whether the authorities should be allowed to take away the shelter of a person accused of a crime as a measure of punishment to his family.
The bench said that the right to shelter is one of the aspects of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
Laying down guidelines for the entire country, the Court said that no property should be demolished without giving a show cause notice and the affected should be given 15 days to respond.
Taking a tough stand on ‘bulldozer justice’, the bench said the authorities cannot act as a judge, convict an accused and demolish his house. A bench of Justices Gavai and Vishwanathan said, “If the authorities arbitrarily demolish the house of a citizen merely on the ground that he is accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of rule of law.”
The court said that if a person’s house is demolished merely because he is accused or found guilty, it would be “completely unconstitutional”. Justice Gavai, while delivering the verdict, said that the executive cannot replace the judiciary in carrying out its core functions.