The Supreme Court on Monday expressed the intention to frame pan-India guidelines to address the concerns that authorities in several States are resorting to the demolition of houses of persons accused of crimes as a punitive action, Live Law reported.
Since Narendra Modi was elected Prime Minister in 2014, BJP governments at both the state and central levels have been accused of carrying out arbitrary demolitions of properties belonging to Muslims as a “punishment” following episodes of Hindutva violence or protests by Muslims against discriminatory government policies.
“How can demolition be (carried out) just because (a person) is an accused?” asked a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.
The apex court was hearing two pleas filed on the issue of such demolitions that were alleged to be taking place without notice and as a form of “revenge.”
The pleas were filed by Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh.
Khan, a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur, said that his house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on 17 August, 2024. This was after anti-Muslim violence broke out in Udaipur, several vehicles belonging to Muslims were set on fire and markets closed following the issuance of a prohibitory order after a Muslim schoolboy allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate who later succumbed to his injuries. Khan is the father of the accused schoolboy.
Hussain from Madhya Pradesh has alleged that his house and shop were illegally bulldozed by the State administration.
The two applications were filed with the help of rights group Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) in a case earlier filed by Jamiat Ulama I Hind against the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh.
“We are on broad guidelines so that there is no bulldozer tomorrow and so that it is documented and checked so that either side cannot point any lacunae … Demolition on any such ground of being an accused is not correct,” Justice Viswanathan added.
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave representing Jamiat Ulama I Hind, recounted how one such bulldozer demolition in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri took place, Bar and Bench reported.
“On April 16 permission was sought for protest … it was refused.. then also they did it and then the officials sought more men to demolish the properties.. Is this fair? … Imagine, the house of a tenant and not even owner of the property was demolished,” he argued.
Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for one of the applicants said:
“They demolished 50-60 year old homes. The home was demolished because son or tenant of the owner is involved (accused in a crime).. one case is from Madhya Pradesh and one from Udaipur.”
Advocate Fauzia Shakil represented another applicant.
The apex court said that it will hear the matter in detail on Tuesday afternoon and sought suggestions from all sides so that guidelines may be framed on the issue.
“For the first time in the past 8-10 years of bulldozer rule, two victims of bulldozer injustice have approached the Supreme Court. This has only been possible due to the relentless efforts of APCR’s grassroots workers. In these times, when seeking justice has become so daunting and expensive, two poor families—one from Udaipur, Rajasthan, and the other from Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh—have placed their trust in APCR,” earlier Nadeem Khan, National Secretary, APCR, said to Maktoob.
