Why are the houses of the accused being demolished?

Hearing the petitions filed against 'bulldozer justice', the Supreme Court on Monday sharply criticized the trend of demolishing the houses and properties of accused persons and announced the issuance of guidelines to combat these problems.

“How can someone's house be demolished just because he is an accused? Even if he is convicted, it cannot be done without following the procedure laid down by law,” said a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan.

The court stated that no building can be demolished just because a person is accused of a crime. The court, however, said it will not protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment on public roads. “We will not protect any illegal construction blocking public roads, including a temple, but there should be guidelines for demolition,” it added.

The court also appreciated the state of Uttar Pradesh's stand that demolition can only take place if a structure is illegal. The court asked that the proposals be placed before senior advocate Nachiketa Joshi, who should compile them and submit them to the court.

“Bulldozer justice,” also known as bulldozer politics, is the practice of using heavy machinery to demolish the homes of suspected criminals, communal violence rioters, and defendants in criminal proceedings.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, in particular, started the practice of instant 'justice' by using bulldozers to raze the properties of accused to make an example and put pressure on the absconders. Later, other BJP-ruled states – Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan and even the Congress states – followed suit. Soon, Yogi earned the nickname 'Bulldozer Baba', with which he tried to convey his 'no-nonsense', hard-working style. Interestingly, in the 2022 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, reiterating Yogi's 'bulldozer' qualities became part of the BJP's election campaign strategy.

However, the use of bulldozers has been met with strong criticism. Many are wondering how this measure can even be taken before the allegations against an individual are proven. They also wonder why the administration needs to punish the entire family for the crime of one individual.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard two petitions addressing the issue of these demolitions, which were allegedly carried out without prior notice and as a form of “revenge”. The petitions were filed by Rashid Khan of Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain of Madhya Pradesh.

The application filed by Khan, a 60-year-old autorickshaw driver from Udaipur, states that his house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17, 2024. This happened after communal clashes broke out in Udaipur, several vehicles were set ablaze and markets were closed following the issuance of prohibitory orders after a Muslim student allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate, who later succumbed to his injuries. Khan is the father of the accused student.

Similarly, Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh alleged that his house and shop were illegally bulldozed by the state administration.

The two applications were filed as part of a case filed earlier by Jamiat Ulama I Hind against the demolition of Muslim houses in Haryana's Nuh following violence between Hindus and Muslims in the area. Attorney General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, referred to an affidavit filed earlier by the state in the matter.

He said the affidavit states that the mere allegation that a person was involved in a crime can never be a reason for demolition of his immovable property.

Mehta said the state has stated that demolition of a property can be done “only in violation of and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the local government legislation in force for the time being or the procedure applicable to the development authorities of the area”. He said a property cannot be demolished on the sole ground that the owner or occupant of such property was involved in any offence.

“If you accept this position, we will record and issue guidelines for all states,” the court said. “We will not protect any unauthorized construction or encroachment on public roads. Not even temples on public roads,” the top court said. Mehta said the issue would be discussed with the states to find a solution.

“Although it is a legal issue, it appears to be frequently ignored,” the court noted. The attorney general said the plaintiffs had portrayed the issue as if houses were being demolished only because some people had committed a crime.

Mehta said he could prove that the authorities had issued notices long before the demolition. “This dispute can be put to rest by my (Uttar Pradesh) affidavit which I filed long ago,” he said.

The court stressed the need to formulate guidelines on the issue and said it must be ensured that neither an individual exploits a loophole in the law nor the authorities rely on loopholes. “As they said, a pious father can have a wayward son and vice versa, but this cannot be done,” the court said.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing one of the plaintiffs, said, “Let it be recorded that bulldozer justice is not being administered across the country.” He said almost all states are currently doing so and demolishing buildings. Senior advocate CU Singh, representing some plaintiffs, referred to building demolitions in other states. “We will frame guidelines across the country,” the court said.

The Supreme Court observed that these petitions expressed grievances against demolition of immovable properties of persons accused of crime. It said this stand was challenged by Uttar Pradesh and the state had filed an affidavit stating that immovable properties could be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

“We suggest that certain guidelines be laid down at the all-India level so that the concerns raised on the issues raised are addressed,” the court said. The court asked the parties' counsel to submit their suggestions so that the court can frame appropriate guidelines applicable at the all-India level.

It asked the parties to submit a copy of their submissions to the counsel appearing for Madhya Pradesh and said the public prosecutor would prepare the same. The case was fixed for further hearing on September 17.