“Very disturbing and depressing”: that is how the arbitrary demolition of the homes and properties of persons accused of offences by state authorities was characterised by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court at a public event on March 22.
“According to me, using a bulldozer to demolish a property is like running a bulldozer over the Constitution,” Bhyuan contended. “It is a negation of the very concept of rule of law and if not checked, would destroy the very edifice of our justice delivery system.”
His observations came four months after extra-judicial demolitions had been declared illegal by a Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan. The judgement provided detailed guidelines for municipal authorities to follow when demolishing any property. It fixed personal responsibility on the officials carrying out such actions.
Yet, since the judgement, the arbitrary demolition of homes of people accused of crimes – a practice popularly hailed in some quarters as “bulldozer justice” – has continued. When such instances have been brought up before the Supreme Court, it has on some occasions asked the victims to approach the High Court. In other cases, it has issued notice or stayed the demolitions.
Supreme Court’s directives
Though Indian law does not permit properties to be demolished as a punitive measure, the practice has become widespread, particularly in states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Between April and June 2022, the authorities in four BJP-ruled states and one Aam Aadmi Party-ruled state bulldozed 128 structures, mostly belonging to Muslims, according to a report by human rights group Amnesty International.
In 2022, three public interest litigation petitions challenged this in the Supreme Court. In November, the court issued detailed guidelines about the conditions under which demolitions could be conducted.
According to these guidelines, no demolition can proceed without a show-cause notice being issued 15 days in advance. In addition, the person or entity concerned should be given a personal hearing. The final order must address the arguments of the affected party, regularisation options and establish the need for demolition.
Parties affected are to be given 15 days to appeal before the action is executed. If the owner does not remove the unauthorised construction within 15 days, the authorities may proceed with the demolition, provided there is no stay from a higher authority.
If demolitions do take place, they must be video-recorded, with reports submitted to the municipal commissioner and posted publicly. Officers conducting unlawful demolitions bear personal responsibility for restoring the property and paying compensation to its owners, the court said.
However, the guidelines do not apply to unauthorised structures on public places such as roads, footpaths or near water bodies and cases of court-ordered demolitions.
Bulldozer injustice continues
This exception for encroachments on public land, Scroll had noted, has left significant gaps for the authorities to continue to arbitrarily demolish homes.
Indeed, in over four months since the Supreme Court order, there have been several documented instances of the authorities conducting illegal demolitions without following the Supreme Court’s November 13 guidelines. This has been done under the pretext that the properties targetted were unauthorised or built on public land.
Most recently on Monday, Nagpur municipal authorities bulldozed portions of the home of Fahim Khan, one of the persons accused of being involved in the riots that broke out in the city on March 17. Hours later, the Bombay High Court stayed the demolition order, effectively halting the demolition of allegedly illegal portions of the residence of another accused, Yusuf Sheikh.
Also in Maharashtra, a Muslim man’s house and shop in the Malvan town of Sindhudurg district were demolished allegedly without any prior notice by civic authorities on the night of February 23 for being illegal structures.
The man alleged that the demolition was punitive retribution after a first information report was registered against him and his wife, accusing their son of shouting anti-India slogans during a cricket match between India and Pakistan on February 23.
The man, Kitabulla Hamidulla Khan, approached the Supreme Court, alleging contempt of the court’s November 13 order. The court issued notice in the matter on Monday seeking the response of the civic authorities.
In Punjab, the police had demolished the homes of alleged drug peddlers on the grounds that the properties had been acquired with the proceeds of drug trading. On March 1, a public interest litigation was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the implementation of the Supreme Court’s order barring illegal demolitions and that action against the alleged proceeds of drug trade be taken as per law.
On February 9, the municipal council of Hata in Uttar Pradesh demolished portions of the Madni Masjid. The authorities allegedly did not grant the mosque management a prior hearing. A petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking contempt of court proceedings against the authorities for violating the Supreme Court’s directives.
The section of the mosque that was allegedly beyond the sanctioned plan could have been regularised legally, said the petitioners.
The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter on February 17 and stayed further demolition of the mosque.
A similar contempt petition was filed before the court in January for the demolition of a factory belonging to a Muslim family in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh by the executive authorities, allegedly without prior notice or giving the family the opportunity for a hearing. However, the court on February 7 directed the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court instead.
Similarly, on March 3 the Supreme Court refused to hear a public interest litigation petition seeking contempt action against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for demolishing three houses and a shed belonging to Muslim persons accused in a criminal case without allegedly following due procedure. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to move the Gujarat High Court.
Gavai, who authored the November 13 judgement of the court, was on both the benches that redirected the petitioners towards High Courts.
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Punjab are ruled by the BJP. The Aam Aadmi Party is in office in Punjab.
Supreme Court must set an example
The continuation of the regime of illegal punitive demolitions of property signals a disregard for the Supreme Court’s November 13 order and for rule of law, say lawyers involved in these matters.
“These demolitions show that the state is not showing due deference to the Supreme Court’s directions,” said Delhi-based Advocate on Record Paras Nath Singh, who had filed the contempt petition for the Muslim persons whose properties were demolished in Ahmedabad. “Such impunity cannot be allowed in a democracy with rule of law.”
Delhi-based advocate Sarim Naved, who had argued one of the petitions that culminated in the November 13 order, agreed. “These continued demolitions are attempts to tell courts that they don’t matter – that rule of law does not matter,” he said.
The Supreme Court must step in and send a strong signal that such illegal demolitions in violation of its order won’t be tolerated, lawyers told Scroll. Otherwise, it would seem that “the Supreme Court is not serious about enforcing its own order,” said Singh.
The Supreme Court asked petitioners complaining about illegal demolitions to approach High Courts in some cases because it “seems to have thought that it could not deal with every violation,” said public interest lawyer and activist Prashant Bhushan, who had also argued before the Supreme Court in the petitions leading to the November order.
“However, violations will only stop when strict punishment is given to the officers concerned as well as the politicians from whom such orders come,” he added. “Otherwise, the Supreme Court’s order will remain an empty statement.”
Naved suggested how the court could intervene. “The Supreme Court must pull up errant authorities for contempt of court, order compensation of victims and reconstruction of their properties and punish officers responsible for these demolitions,” he said.
Singh agreed. The court “must take errant authorities to task and send out a stern message,” he said.
