Public Safety Supreme, Temple, Dargah On Road Must Go: SC
From Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reiterated that public safety was supreme and any obstacle on its way is unacceptable. The Apex Court, hearing a litigation on “bulldozer demotion” commented that religious structure encroaching upon a road, water bodies, or rail tracks must go, since public protection cannot be compromised on any count. The court also observed that India is a secular country and its directions for bulldozer action and anti-encroachment drives will be for all citizens, irrespective of their religion.
A Division Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions contesting the administrative decisions to demolish the buildings of those allegedly involved in criminal incidents through “bulldozer action”. Though the authorities defend their ‘bulldozer justice’ maintaining that only illegal structures were demolished, there have been increasing incidence of targeting selectively for the action and that has created widespread discontent.
While hearing the Court said that if demolition is found to be illegal and against the existing rules, the property will have to be reconstituted by the authority concerned.
The Court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for three states — Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, if being accused in a criminal case can be a ground for facing bulldozer action. To this Mehta replied, “No absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism. Like my lord said it cannot also be that the notice issued is stuck one day before, it has to be in advance. One of the concerns was that notice has to be issued… most municipal laws, depending on the subject matter they are dealing with, have provisions for issuance of notice. Your Lordships may read that a notice be issued via registered post.”
On September 17, the Bench had said there will not be any demolition of properties, including of those accused of crime, till October 1 without its permission. The apex court had then said that the order is not applicable to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or other public spaces.
The Court during the hearing observed that there were different laws for municipal corporations and panchayats. “There should also be an online portal so people are aware, once you digitise it there is a record.”
The Solicitor General then said he was worried that the court was issuing directions based on a few instances alleging that one community was being targeted.
“We are a secular country and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community. Of course, for encroachment we have said… if it is on a public road, footpath, water body or railway line area, it has to go, public safety is paramount. If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurudwara or dargah or temple, it cannot obstruct public,” the court said.
Justice Gavai said, “For unauthorised construction, there has to be one law, it is not dependent on religion or faith or beliefs.”
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover appears for UN Rapporteur and makes arguments on housing availability. The Solicitor General objected. “I know for whom they are, we don’t want this to internationalise. Our Constitutional courts are powerful enough and our government is assisting non-adversarialy. We don’t need an international agency to come in,” he said.
Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, said his only point was that bulldozer action not be used as a crime-fighting measure.
Mr Mehta said bulldozer action against minorities will be “far and few between”. The bench responded, “It is not some or two persons, the figure is 4.45 lakh.”
The court said, it would make clear that being accused in a crime cannot be the basis for the demolition of property and it can only be done in cases of violation of civic rules.
