Supreme Court on bulldozer justice: “The Supreme Court stated that citizens’ voices could not be silenced by threats to destroy their properties and homes.”
In a recent judgment on illegal demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud stated that “justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence.” The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the UP government for an “illegal” demolition in 2019 and issued guidelines to all states and Union Territories regarding proper procedures for road-widening and the removal of encroachments.
Supreme Court on bulldozer justice: Supreme Court Orders UP Government to Compensate Man for Demolished House, Cautions Against Arbitrary Demolition Practices
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also ordered the UP government to compensate the man whose house was demolished for a road-widening project in 2019, awarding him ₹ 25 lakh.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said in his order, “It is a very dangerous thing that if any government wing or officer is given a free hand for doing arbitrary and illegal acts, then a process of demolition of citizens’ properties by some specific means can begin.”
“The voice of citizens cannot be silenced by the threat of demolition of their properties and homes. The greatest security a person has is his own home. The law does not allow illegal occupation and encroachment at all,” he said.
Supreme Court on bulldozer justice: Bulldozer Justice Has No Place in Law, Says Supreme Court, Emphasizing Property Rights and Due Process Under Article 300A”
“Bulldoser justice has absolutely no place under the government’s umbrella of law. If this is allowed, then the property rights given under Article 300A will become meaningless,” the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court had directed the UP chief secretary to investigate a house in Maharajganj district and take necessary steps in this matter. The bench also explained what steps the government or any agency under it should take before taking action in connection with a road-widening project.
If encroachment is found in any case, the state should give a notice to the encroacher to remove it. If there is any objection to the correctness and validity of the notice, the state will issue a “speaking order” in which the principles of natural justice will be kept in mind, the Supreme Court said.
If the objection is rejected, the person against whom action has been proposed should be given a reasonable notice to remove the encroachment, the Supreme Court also said.
