"No Demolition Without Our Permission Till Then": Supreme Court To Hear Plea Against Demolition Drives On 1st October 2024
|The Supreme Court, today, has directed that until the next date of hearing in the matters relating to the demolitions in the Country, no such demolition will happen without the leave of the Court.
The Court was hearing the writ petition (PIL) filed by the Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind against the demolition drive carried out by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation ('NDMC') in the Jahangirpuri area.
The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan ordered, "List it on 1st October 2024, at the request of the Ld. Solicitor General of India. However, we direct that until the next date there shall be no demolition without seeking leave of this Court...We clarify that such order would not be applicable if there is any unauthorised structure on public roads, streets, footpaths, railway lines or on pubic places like water bodies."
Solicitor General Tushar Singh mentioned the matter after lunch hours to seek adjournment. Senior Advocate CU Singh for the Petitioners submitted that the demolitions are happening almost on a daily basis, and now there is urgency in the matter.
The Court said, "We will have it on 1st (October), but let the State Government be informed that there cannot be any demolition except in accordance with the law...no demolition without the leave of the Court, you come, we will examine it. We are not on one community."
Justice Viswanathan said, "This has to be followed so that nobody takes advantage of any lacunae, neither the unauthorised occupants nor the authorities...The fear is while on the one side, the allegation is, notice is served, backdated or something, pasted on the house and demolished it..."
SG Mehta replied, "We have to demolish that narrative which has been built in your Lordship's mind."
Justice Viswanathan replied, "You be rest assured that the outside noise is not interfering...but you said in your affidavit that no property had been demolished merely because somebody is an accused of an offence...The idea is you streamline this so that the documents can show whether the procedure is followed or not...even if there is one instance of demolition, irrespective of religion, it is against the ethos of our Constitution, and that will have to be streamlined."
SG Mehta stated, "This narrative building has resulted into something...the narrative is wrong"
Justice Gavai intervened and said, "That doesn't influence us...if there is an apprehension that it is being used by the Executive, the executive cannot be a judge...we have made it clear in the very day that we are not going to come into the way of an unauthorised...like on a public road, or railway track...if it on a footpath, we will say not even notice is required, demolish it forthwith."
SG Mehta said, "Today a petition was listed that because of the religion a building was demolished...this is the kind of narrative which is being built."
The Court remarked that it is necessary to streamline the directives so that they can be effective in letter and spirit.
SG Mehta stated, "Let them bring any one incident of demolition where the law has not been followed...also affected parties don't approach because they know that they have received notices and the construction is illegal."
Senior Advocate CU Singh submitted that on the previous day of hearing, on the same day, stone pelting happened in Bhilwara, Rajasthan. "There was a Hindu procession on which stone pelting happened, immediately, on the same night, demolitions happened. All recorded, it was videographed and was in the news...I am saying this because, please keep a short date, this is happening daily.", he said.
After the order was dictated by the Court, SG Mehta said, "Kindly consider one example...say in Uttrakhand or Telangana some construction is found...Throughout the country, Your Lordships will examine it?"
Justice KV Viswanathan said, "10:30, come in the morning, we will examine it, once we are satisfied...it doesn't matter, Mr Mehta. This conceptually unless it passed judicial overview...there has to be some judicial oversight..."
Mehta said, "But for every illegal construction?"
Justice Gavai said, "We don't take cognizance of the newspaper...but after the order, there have been statements that the bulldozer will continue...and it all depends on whose hands the steering is."
Justice Viswanathan remarked, "After this directive is laid down, we will seek assistance on this glorification and grandstanding of the bulldozer, unauthorised bulldozer...you will assist us to how to stop this...if necessary we will ask the Election Commission also...we need your assistance that after 2nd September, you yourself said that it should not have happened, there have been glorification, grandstanding and justification. Now, should it happen in our country? If so, what should be the sanction? Whether the Election Commission can be noticed so that some kind of procedure can be laid down...this can't happen...under no circumstances whatsoever...you must dissociate with this view that we are against you or some activity...We go by your affidavit...Streamline it...These directives have to be formulated within the framework of municipal law guaranteeing legal remedies."
SG Mehta said, "I can't ask the entire country not to demolish anything. There are municipalities, panchayats..."
Justice Gavai remarked, "You don't have to do it, we are doing it under Article 142...if somebody wants to face the contempt, let them face it..."
Justice Viswanathan remarked, "Heavens will not fall, Mr Mehta...we have lived like this for so long...One more week or two more weeks, fair enough."
On the last date of the hearing in the matter, the Court had remarked that authorities cannot demolish a house only because he is an accused or even if he is a convict without following the procedure step by step. The Court clarified that it will not protect unauthorised constructions. The Court had also said that it would frame guidelines applicable to pan India against the demolition drives happening in the country.
The Supreme Court, on April 21, 2022, had extended the order of status quo regarding the demolition drive. The Court had issued notice in all cases and has directed parties to file pleadings regarding whether or not notices were served before demolition. Dave had argued that a particular section of the society was being targeted through the demolition drive and that Jahangirpuri was picked despite there being 731 unauthorised colonies in Delhi. Dave relied upon Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, to argue that notice should have been given before the demolition of structures.
The NDMC had halted the demolition drive it was carrying out in the Jahangirpuri area after the Supreme Court directed its Secretary-General to convey the order to stop demolition to the NDMC Mayor and the Delhi Police Commissioner immediately. The matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave once again since the NDMC continued the demolition driving, stating that it did not receive a copy of the interim order passed by the Court.
The NDMC, in its Counter Affidavit before the Supreme Court, had said that as per the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, it can remove unauthorised projections on public land and unauthorised temporary structures beyond the boundary of houses and shops without serving notice. It has also said that for the removal of such structures, bulldozers are required. "When a road or footpath is cleared, the process goes on from one end to another without any distinction of the religion or owner/occupier who has unauthorizedly occupied footpath or public road", the NDMC had said while denying the allegation of targeting any particular community.
In June 2022, the Court had also sought response from the Uttar Pradesh Government while refusing to stay the demolition drive in the Kanpur and Prayagraj districts of Uttar Pradesh. Jamiat had also, through a new affidavit, sought a writ of Mandamus to the Union of India and the State Government so that no lasting precipitative action is taken against any accused in any criminal proceeding. Jamiat had, in its affidavit, referred to the protest and the ensuing scuffle that happened in the Kanpur District of Uttar Pradesh and stated that several persons of authority, including the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, have given statements in the media that the houses and properties of the perpetrators would be razed using bulldozers.
The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had also moved the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the Centre and some states, including Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, that "precipitative actions" like razing buildings in criminal proceedings be not taken. The plea had assumed significance because of recent actions taken by authorities in Madhya Pradesh to use bulldozers to raze the properties of those accused of rioting during the Ram Navami celebrations. Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, in its petition, had said that the action, like razing the house in a criminal proceeding as a punishment, is unknown to criminal law.
Recently, in a different matter, the Court had observed that the alleged involvement of a person in a crime is not a ground for demolishing a property. After an FIR was registered against a family member of the petitioner, the municipal authorities threatened to bulldoze the petitioner’s family home. The Court had observed that a “transgression” by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence.
Cause Title: Jamiat Ulama-i Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (W.P. (C) No. 295 of 2022)