Hearing pleas filed against ‘Bulldozer Justice’, the Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on a trend of demolishing the houses or properties of those who are accused of crimes and said that it would issue guidelines to tackle such issues.

“How can anybody’s house be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law,” a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said.

The bench stated that no property can be demolished just because a person is accused of a criminal offence.  The court, however, said it will not protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment on public roads. “We will not protect any illegal structure obstructing public roads, that includes a temple, but there should be guidelines for demolition,” it added.

The court also appreciated the stand taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh which said that demolition can be done only if a structure is illegal. The Bench requested that the suggestions be given to Senior Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, who was requested to collate them and present them to the Court.

‘Bulldozer justice’, also known as bulldozer politics, refers to the practice of using the heavy-duty piece of machinery to demolish houses of alleged criminals, communal violence rioters and accused in criminal cases.

Notably, the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath started the practice of instant “justice” using bulldozers to bring down properties of accused to make an example of them and put pressure on those absconding. Later other BJP ruled states-Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan and even Congress ones, have followed suit.  Soon, Yogi earned the nickname of ‘Bulldozer Baba’, through which he attempted to convey his “no-nonsense” hard taskmaster style of working. Interestingly, in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections, it became a part of the BJP’s campaigning strategy to reiterate Yogi’s ‘bulldozer’ credentials.

However, the practice of using bulldozer has come under strong criticism, with many questioning how the action can be taken even before allegations against a person are proven. They have also questioned why the administration must punish the whole family for the crime of one.

On Monday, the top court was hearing two pleas filed on the issue of such demolitions that were alleged to be taking place without notice and as a form of “revenge.” The pleas were filed by Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh.

The application by Khan, a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur, said that his house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17, 2024. This was after communal clashes broke out in Udaipur, several vehicles were set on fire and markets closed following the issuance of prohibitory orders after a Muslim schoolboy allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate who later succumbed to his injuries. Khan is the father of the accused schoolboy.

Similarly, Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh has alleged that his house and shop were illegally bulldozed by the State administration.

The two applications were filed in a case earlier filed by Jamiat Ulama I Hind against the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh, following the violence between Hindus and Muslims in the area. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, referred to an earlier affidavit filed by the State in the matter.

He said the affidavit states that merely because a person was alleged to have been a part of some offence can never be a ground for demolition of his immovable property.

Mehta said the state has said that demolition of an immovable property can take place “only for violation of and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the respective applicable municipal law or law governing development authorities of the area”. He said no immovable property can be demolished solely on the ground that the owner or occupant of such property was involved in a criminal offence.

“If you are accepting this position, we will record and issue guidelines for all the states,” the bench said. “We are not going to protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment in public roads. Not even the temples on public roads,” the top court said.  Mehta said the issue will be discussed with states in order to find a solution.

“Though it is a question of law, it is seen that it is followed more in breach,” the bench observed.The solicitor general said the petitioners have projected the issue as if houses were demolished only because some people committed an offence.

Mehta said he can show that authorities had issued notices well in advance before demolition was carried out.”This controversy can be put to an end by my (Uttar Pradesh) affidavit which I had filed long time back,” he said.

Stressing on the need for formulating guidelines on the issue, the bench said it was necessary to ensure that neither an individual takes advantage of a loophole nor authorities rely on lacunae.”As they said, a pious father can have recalcitrant son and vice-versa, but this is no way to go about it,” the bench said.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, said, “Let a statement be recorded that across the country, bulldozer justice will not be meted out to people”. He said almost every state was now indulging in this and demolishing properties.Senior advocate C U Singh, appearing for some applicants, referred to demolition of properties in some other states.”We will lay down guidelines for across the country,” the bench said.

The top court noted that these petitions have raised grievances about immovable properties of people accused of crime being demolished.It said this position has been disputed by Uttar Pradesh and an affidavit has been filed by the state which says immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

“We propose to lay down certain guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concerns with regard to the issues raised are taken care of,” the bench said.The bench asked the counsel for the parties to give their suggestions so that the court can frame appropriate guidelines which will be applicable on a pan-India basis.

It asked the parties to supply the copy of their suggestions to the counsel appearing for Madhya Pradesh and said the state’s lawyer will collate them.It posted the matter for further hearing on September 17.