Bulldozer justice is like demolishing the law of the country… Supreme Court’s strong comment

New Delhi : The Supreme Court on Thursday once again made a strong comment on ‘Bulldozer Justice’. The court said that doing so by government officials is like ‘destroying the law’ of the country. The apex court made it clear that involvement in crime cannot be the basis for demolishing someone’s property. Earlier on September 2, the Supreme Court had made a similar comment and talked about making guidelines to stop arbitrary bulldozer action. The bulldozer action against the accused was first started by the Yogi Adityanath government of UP. After that, now some other states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat have also started on the same path. This case was of a family from Gujarat, who had filed a petition against the threat of bulldozer action on their house. While hearing the case, a bench of Justices Rishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti said that the entire family cannot be punished by demolishing the house for the alleged crime committed by one member. The bench said, ‘The court cannot remain oblivious to such threats of sabotage; such a thing cannot even be imagined in a country where the law is supreme.’

The bench further said, “Such actions can be construed as ‘bulldozing the law of the land’.” The bench said that in a country where the actions of the state are bound by the rule of law, action cannot be taken against other members of a family or their legally constructed house for a crime committed by one member of the family. The bench said that alleged involvement in a crime is not a ground for demolition of the property. Moreover, it is also necessary to prove the alleged crime.

Senior advocate Iqbal Syed, appearing for the petitioner, told the bench that there was nothing illegal in the construction of the house in which the family has been living for the last two decades. he/she also cited the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat in 2004 in which permission was given to build a residential house.

In fact, the municipality had threatened to demolish the house after a criminal case was filed against one of the family members. The petitioner alleges that the law should take its course against the person accused of the crime, but the entire family should not be punished.

The petition states that, ‘The Municipality or anyone in the guise of the Municipality has no right to threaten to demolish or take any action like bulldozing of the legally constructed and legally occupied house/residence of the petitioner.’

The Supreme Court has granted interim relief to the petitioner, fixing the hearing of the case after 4 weeks. The bench said, ‘In the meantime, all the concerned parties will have to maintain status quo with regard to the property of the petitioner.’