New Delhi: The Supreme Court stated today that public safety is paramount and any religious structure encroaching on roads, water bodies, or railway tracks must be removed. The court emphasized that India is a secular nation, and its directives for bulldozer actions and anti-encroachment drives apply to all citizens, regardless of their religion.
The bench, consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, was hearing petitions challenging the use of bulldozers against individuals accused of crimes. This trend, often referred to as “bulldozer justice,” has gained traction in several states. State authorities have previously asserted that only illegal structures were demolished in such cases.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. When asked if being accused of a crime could justify bulldozer action, Mr. Mehta responded, “Absolutely not, even for serious offenses like rape or terrorism. As my lord mentioned, a notice cannot be issued just one day prior; it must be provided in advance. One of the concerns was that notice must be issued… most municipal laws have provisions for issuing notice depending on the subject matter. Your Lordships may suggest that a notice be sent via registered post.”
The bench noted that there are different laws for municipal corporations and panchayats, stating, “There should also be an online portal so that people are informed; once digitized, there will be a record.”
The Solicitor General expressed concern that the court was issuing directives based on isolated instances suggesting that one community was being targeted.
“We are a secular country, and our directives will apply to all citizens, regardless of religion or community. For encroachments, we have made it clear: if they obstruct a public road, footpath, water body, or railway line, they must be removed because public safety is paramount. Any religious structure that blocks the road—whether it’s a gurudwara, dargah, or temple—cannot impede public access,” the court stated.
Justice Gavai added, “For unauthorized construction, there must be a single law that is not influenced by religion, faith, or beliefs.”
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the UN Rapporteur, argued about housing availability, but the Solicitor General objected. “I know who they represent, and we don’t want this to become an international issue. Our constitutional courts are powerful enough, and our government is cooperating non-adversarially. We don’t need an international agency involved,” he said.
Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing one of the petitioners, argued that bulldozer action should not be used as a crime-fighting tool.
Mr. Mehta claimed that bulldozer actions against minorities would be “rare.” The bench responded, “It’s not just a few 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.
Additionally, the court has extended the interim halt on demolitions conducted without its approval.
