Supreme Court: In a batch of petitions challenging the ‘bulldozer actions’ against properties of persons who are accused of some crime, the Division Bench of BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, JJ. said that guidelines on ‘Pan-India Basis’ would be laid down, so that the concerns regard demolishing of properties of accused persons are taken care of. The Bench, hence, sought suggestions from all the parties in order to frame appropriate guidelines.
According to reports, Justice Gavai remarked that “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he is a convict.”
The State of Uttar Pradesh opposed the petition and stated through an affidavit that immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. The Court also appreciated the State’s stand.
The genesis of the petitions lies in distinct facts. In 2022, concerns were raised against trend of demolishing the homes of people accused persons. It was emphasized that right to a home was a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Petitions were filed against 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. It was submitted that such demolition drives against properties of accused cannot be taken as an extra-punitive measure.
The recent pleas originate from Udaipur and Madhya Pradesh. According to reports, after communal clashes in Udaipur for allegations against a Muslim schoolboy for allegedly stabbing a Hindu classmate, the house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration.
In a similar instance from Madhya Pradesh, house and shop were illegally bulldozed by the State administration.
[Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295/2022, decided on: 02-09-2024]
With inputs from Press
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv.; M.R. Shamshad, Sr. Adv.; Farrukh Rasheed, AOR; Nabeela Jamil, Adv.; Azra Rahman, Adv.; Sugandha Anand, AOR; Sarim Naved, Adv.; Shahid Nadeem, Adv.; Saurabh Sagar, Adv.; Harsh Kumar, Adv.
For the respondent: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; K M Nataraj, A.S.G; Kanu Agarwal, Adv.; Rajat Nair, Adv.; Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv.; Amit Sharma B, Adv.; Mayank Pandey, Adv.; Varun Chugh, Adv.; Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR; Garima Prashad, Sr. A.A.G.; Ruchira Goel, AOR; Sharanya Sinha, Adv.; Harshita Nigam, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
