Akhilesh Yadav vs Yogi over bulldozer actions: SP chief asks ‘Is map of CM residence approved?’ Will the govt apologise?

Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav on Wednesday launched a scathing attack on Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and his government over bulldozer actions in the state and asked if the map of the Chief Minister's residence is approved.

Akhilesh's remarks come a day after the Supreme Court asked how anybody's house could be demolished just because he was an accused.

“These people used to scare others with bulldozers and used to demolish people's houses in various places, but is the map of the Chief Minister's residence approved? Tell us when it was passed, show the papers,” asked the SP chief.

Referring to what the Supreme Court said on the bulldozer action, Akhilesh Yadav accused the Yogi government of deliberately running the bulldozer on those from whom CM wanted to take revenge.

“Will the government apologise for the bulldozer operation that was going on till now or not?” asked Akhilesh.

On Wednesday, Yogi Adityanath took a swipe at Akhilesh Yadav, saying, “not everyone has the heart to handle a bulldozer,”’ while referring to the SP chief's remark that after 2027, he will order all ‘bulldozers’ to Gorakhpur.

Reacting to that, the SP chief quipped that as far as heart and mind are concerned, he wants to say that there is no brain in a bulldozer, and it runs by the steering. “The people of Uttar Pradesh can change the steering of someone's bulldozer,” said Akhilesh.

On Monday, while hearing various petitions relating to authorities' use of bulldozers to demolish properties, the SC said that authorities cannot demolish the properties of the accused even if he is convicted and further questioned this practice.

The court also asked concerned parties to submit suggestions that the top court could consider in framing pan-India guidelines.

During the hearing, a bench of justices, BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, remarked, “Even if he is a convict, still it can't be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.”

However, the top court made it clear that it would not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads.