More
    HomeEnglish NewsSupreme Court Comes Down Heavily On 'Bulldozer Justice'

    Supreme Court Comes Down Heavily On ‘Bulldozer Justice’

    The Supreme Court today expressed strong disapproval of what it termed “bulldozer justice,” questioning the practice of demolishing homes solely based on the property owner’s status as an accused or convicted individual in a criminal case. The Court proposed establishing nationwide guidelines to regulate such demolitions.

    Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the petitioner, urged the Court to ensure that “bulldozer justice” does not become a widespread practice across the country.

    During the proceedings, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued that demolishing immovable property solely due to a person’s involvement in a criminal case is inappropriate. “Demolition should only occur if the structure is illegal,” Mehta stated. However, he contended that the issue is being misrepresented before the Court. Justice BR Gavai questioned, “How can a structure be demolished merely because its owner is an accused or a convict?”

    The bench, which also included Justice KV Viswanathan, emphasized the need for a structured approach. “If construction is unauthorized, it must be addressed appropriately. We need to establish clear guidelines and procedures for such actions,” they said. Justice Viswanathan suggested that the Court could issue directions to prevent arbitrary demolitions, such as requiring notice, time to respond, and an opportunity to seek legal remedies before proceeding with demolition.

    The bench made it clear that it is not defending illegal constructions but insisted that there must be formal guidelines for demolitions. “We will not shield illegal structures that obstruct public roads, including temples, but clear guidelines are necessary,” they affirmed.

    Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and CU Singh, representing the petitioners, highlighted recent demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri as examples. They reported that properties, including those rented out, were demolished, sometimes affecting homes that were 50-60 years old, simply because the property owner’s son or tenant was involved in legal troubles.

    RELATED ARTICLES

    Most Popular

    Recent Comments