Bulldozers being used in a demolition drive. Representative image.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its judgment on Wednesday, laying down pan-India guidelines on use of bulldozer by state governments as a punitive measure to demolish house or shop of a person immediately after he or she is named as accused of an offence.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan is likely to lay down mandatory guidelines for the States to follow before the use of bulldozer to demolish any structure.
The court had on October 1 wrapped up its hearing in the matter, initiated on a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama I Hind and others.
According to the Supreme Court's website, the bench would pronounce the judgment at 10.30 am on Wednesday, November 13, in the case titled as 'In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures'.
On September 2, the Supreme Court had said it would lay down pan-India guidelines to deal with the controversial issue of "bulldozer justice" resorted to by some state governments to raze down structures, dwellings, etc.
On September 12, another bench had made strong observations against "bulldozer justice", saying in a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot lead to demolition of their legally constructed house or else it would be equivalent to running "bulldozer over the laws".
On November 6, a bench led by then CJI D Y Chandrachud, had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 25 lakh as interim compensation to senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal Akash for demolition of his house in Maharajganj district for a road widening project.
The court had then also said justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence and it is simply "unacceptable" under the rule of law.
"If high-handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the State, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons," it cautioned.
The court had also stressed that the citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads.