The Supreme Court new rules in its verdict said, “Public Safety is paramount and any religious structure whether a temple or a dargah blocking public roads, railway tracks and water bodies must go. The court emphasised that India is a secular country and  demolition of any illegal structure will be applied for all the citizens, irrespective of their religion.

The hearing was done by the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan which challenged the bulldozer action against the people involved in the crimes. The ‘bulldozer justice,’ which gained attention across various states, became a method for swift action against illegal structures and activities.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented three states—Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh—was asked whether being accused of criminal cases could be grounds for bulldozer action. To the question Mehta repled, “No absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism. As my lord mentioned, notices cannot be issued just one day in advance; they need to be provided well beforehand. One of the issues raised was that notices must be issued, as most municipal laws require advance notice based on the subject matter. You may want to send the notice via registered post.

The court noted that distinct laws govern municipal corporations and panchayats. It emphasised the need for an online portal to keep people informed, highlighting that digitising these records would create a comprehensive database.The Solicitor General raised concerns that the court was issuing directives based on a limited number of cases suggesting that one community was being singled out.

Supreme Court new rules
Image Source: www.sci.gov.in

The court stated, "We are a secular country, and our directions will apply to all, regardless of religion." It emphasised that public safety is their priority, and if a building or illegal structure is on a public road, it must be removed, irrespective of religion. Whether it is a temple or a dargah, it cannot obstruct the public.

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the UN Rapporteur, presented arguments regarding housing availability. The Solicitor General raised an objection, stating, "I know who they are for, and we don’t want this to be internationalised. Our constitutional courts are strong enough, and our government is cooperating non-adversarially. We don’t need an international agency involved."

Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing one of the petitioners, argued that bulldozer action should not be used as a crime-fighting tactic.

In response, Mr. Mehta claimed that bulldozer actions against minorities would be "rare." The bench countered, "It's not just one or two individuals; the figure is 4.45 lakh."

The court clarified that being accused of a crime cannot justify the demolition of property; such actions can only occur in cases of violations of civic regulations.

Moreover, the court has extended the interim stay on demolitions conducted without its permission.

You might also be interested in - Supreme Court questions Byju's decision to settle only BCCI's debt amid 15,000 crore in dues