‘Whether it be temple, dargah, it has to go,’ says SC reserving order on pan-India guidelines on bulldozer action

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asserted that both temples and dargahs may be subject to removal if deemed unsafe and that the demolitions can’t be used to curb crimes.

The top court reserved order on the issue of framing pan-India guidelines relating to demolition drive while extending interim order for not demolishing any property without permission, till further orders.

The apex court bench of Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing pleas assailing bulldozer and demolition actions undertaken by authorities in relation to houses of persons accused of crimes.

Justice Gavai also said that ‘demolition can't be carried out merely because someone is an accused or convict.’ “Also, consider, there should be a narrow window...even before orders for demolition are passed,” he said, according to legal news agency LiveLaw.

On September 17, the Supreme Court of India stopped bulldozer demolition across India until October 1 saying that it would formulate directives on when and how properties can be demolished under the municipal laws of the land.

How can anybody's house be demolished only because he is an accused?

The Supreme Court was hearing pleas raising grievances that the properties of persons who were accused of some crime were being demolished in several states.

“How can anybody's house be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, still it can't be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law,” the bench said on September 17.

The court stated that it would not safeguard unauthorized constructions or encroachments on public roads.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Uttar Pradesh, referenced a previous affidavit from the state, which asserts that simply being accused of an offense does not justify the demolition of a person's immovable property.

On September 2, the Supreme Court on criticised the practice of 'bulldozer justice,' raising concerns about how a house can be demolished solely because it belongs to someone accused or even convicted of a crime.