"Unknown To Any Civilised System": Supreme Court On 'Bulldozer Justice'
The full text of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's recent judgment on illegal demolitions in Uttar Pradesh mentions "justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence."
The full text of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud's recent judgment on illegal demolitions in Uttar Pradesh mentions "justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence."
The Supreme Court on Wednesday had pulled up the UP government for an "illegal" demolition in 2019 while issuing directions to all states and Union Territories (UT) on the procedure to be followed during road-widening and removal of encroachments.
A bench of Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had also directed the UP government to pay Rs 25 lakh compensation to the man whose house was razed in 2019 for a road-widening project.
"... There is a grave danger that 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," Chief Justice Chandracud said in the order.
"Citizens' voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments," he said.
"Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted, the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter," the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court had then directed the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into the matter pertaining to a house in Maharajganj district and take suitable action. The bench elaborated on the steps that a state or its instrumentality must undertake before taking action in pursuance to a road-widening project.
In case an encroachment was found, the state must issue notice to the encroacher to remove it and if the correctness and validity of the notice was objected to, the state would issue a "speaking order" keeping in mind the principles of natural justice, the Supreme Court said.
In a scenario of the objection being rejected, a reasonable notice would be given to the person against whom the adverse action was proposed, to remove the encroachment, it added.
