SC to lay down pan-India guidelines on demolition of properties; reserves verdict

Amid allegations that unauthorised properties belonging to a particular community were being demolished in BJP-ruled states, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will lay down pan-India guidelines for all citizens on the issue even as it made it clear that it will not protect any unauthorised construction on roads, government land or forest.

"Whatever we are laying down, we are a secular country. We are laying it down for all the citizens, for all the institutions, not for any particular community," a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai said, while reserving its order on petitions against demolition of properties, including of those belonging to those accused of crime.

"We are going to make it clear that merely because somebody is an accused, or even somebody is a convict, can't be a ground for demolition," said the Bench – which also included Justice KV Viswanathan.

“Even if it's not authorised...it's not a happy sight to see women and children on the road. Elders coming out on roads...suppose, they want to make alternative arrangements…,” it noted.

The Bench, however, made it clear that it will not protect any unauthorised construction on roads, government land or forest and unauthorised construction made by any person, irrespective of his/her religion or belief, has to be removed.

"We will take care to ensure that our order does not help the encroachers on any of the public places," the Bench said.

"On the first day we had pointed out that if there is any religious structure in the middle of a road, may it be a 'dargah' or some temple, it has to go because public safety and public interest is paramount," it clarified.

In the meantime, its September 17 order staying demolition of properties, including those belonging to a person accused of crime, would continue to operate, the top court said. “It’s there till we decide this matter,” it said after a lawyer made a request in this regard.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the top court to avoid passing any order which may result in amending existing laws.

Mehta -- who represented the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat -- agreed with the Bench that alleged involvement in a criminal case cannot be a ground to demolish someone's house.

He, however, said the September 17 restraint order could come in the way of removal of genuine encroachments and the petitioners’ allegations of the use of demolitions as a punitive measure were very few. "For the benefit of a few… for a few cases of alleged injustices, let undue advantage not be taken by big builders and others," Mehta submitted.

On September 17, the Supreme Court had ordered that no demolition of properties of persons accused of crimes can take place without its prior permission. However, it had clarified that the order won't apply to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines and water bodies.

"Even if there’s one instance of illegal demolition, it’s against ethos of the Constitution," it had said, invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (which empowers it to pass any orders to do complete justice) to halt ‘bulldozer justice’.