The Supreme Court has extended its stay on the use of bulldozers for demolition actions until a final verdict is delivered in the matter. This decision arises from an ongoing case concerning the demolition of a bungalow owned by Haji Shahzad Ali. Ali was implicated in a stone-pelting incident in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, which led to the authorities taking action against his property.
On August 24, local authorities demolished Ali’s bungalow using a bulldozer, an act that has since triggered widespread public discussion and legal scrutiny. The demolition has not only brought into focus the legality of such actions but has also prompted debates on due process and individual rights.
During the hearing on Tuesday, a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan reaffirmed that the nationwide stay on bulldozer demolitions would remain in place. The court emphasized that violations of this ban would result in legal consequences, including fines. Furthermore, any properties wrongfully demolished will be returned to their rightful owners, and compensation will be extracted from the responsible officials.
Representing the governments of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta addressed the court, responding to allegations that bulldozer actions were being disproportionately targeted toward a particular community. This claim has been a point of contention, with many arguing that certain religious groups face unfair targeting in such actions.
In response, the Supreme Court clarified its position, stating that while the ban on bulldozer actions remains in place, it does not extend to cases of illegal encroachment. The removal of unauthorized structures, including those on public roads, railway lines, or in places that pose a safety risk, remains within the bounds of the law. Public safety, the court underscored, must take precedence.
The court took a firm stand on religious encroachments, asserting that no structure—whether a temple, dargah, or any other religious building—can be permitted to block roads or public spaces if it compromises public safety. Justice Gavai reiterated that this directive is not aimed at any specific religion but is essential to protect public interests. Structures, religious or otherwise, that cause disruption or pose hazards must be addressed in the interest of public safety.
During the proceedings, Justice Vishwanathan raised concerns about selective enforcement. He stressed the need for uniform laws that apply equally to all religions and communities to avoid any form of discrimination. If only one of two illegal structures is targeted for demolition, it raises questions of fairness. Justice Vishwanathan called for consistent, non-discriminatory practices across all religions to ensure equal treatment under the law.
The court highlighted that public safety is paramount when dealing with encroachments, especially when these structures are located in hazardous areas such as public roads. It instructed that authorities must provide sufficient notice before demolishing any illegal structure and must conduct a judicial inquiry to ensure fairness in the process.
Justice Gavai revealed the staggering scale of the encroachment problem, disclosing that between 4 to 5 lakh illegal structures are removed each year in India. The court emphasized that the government should establish a common law that applies uniformly across all cases of illegal construction. A judicial review process should be incorporated into these removals to ensure transparency and prevent any miscarriage of justice.
