The Supreme Court said on encroachment, ‘Public safety is paramount and any religious structure encroaching upon a road, water bodies, or rail tracks must go’. ‘India is a secular country and its directions for bulldozer action and anti-encroachment drives will be for all citizens, irrespective of their religion’, said the court. The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes. In the past, the state authorities have maintained that only illegal structures were demolished in such cases.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for three states, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Mehta replied on asked if being accused in a criminal case can be a ground for facing bulldozer action, “No absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism. Like my lord said it cannot also be that the notice issued is stuck one day before, it has to be in advance. One of the concerns was that notice has to be issued, most municipal laws, depending on the subject matter they are dealing with, have provisions for issuance of notice. Your Lordships may read that a notice be issued via registered post’.
‘There are different laws for municipal corporations and panchayats. There should also be an online portal so people are aware, once you digitise it there is a record’, said the bench. The Solicitor General further said he was worried that the court was issuing directions based on a few instances alleging that one community was being targeted.
The court said, ‘We are a secular country and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community. Of course, for encroachment we have said, if it is on a public road, footpath, water body or railway line area, it has to go, public safety is paramount. If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurudwara or dargah or temple, it cannot obstruct public’.
Justice Gavai said, ‘For unauthorised construction, there has to be one law, it is not dependent on religion or faith or beliefs’. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover appears for UN Rapporteur and makes arguments on housing availability. The Solicitor General objected. ‘I know for whom they are, we don’t want this to internationalise. Our Constitutional courts are powerful enough and our government is assisting non-adversarialy. We don’t need an international agency to come in’. Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, said his only point was that bulldozer action not be used as a crime-fighting measure.
Comments