Be it temple or dargah, it has to go: Supreme Court on encroachment

The Supreme Court was hearing petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes -- a move often referred to as 'bulldozer justice'.

In Short

• Supreme Court says directions on bulldozer action will be irrespective of religion
• Says public safety is paramount
• Court had barred demolitions without prior judicial approval last month

The Supreme Court on Tuesday said public safety was paramount and any religious structure, be it temple or dargah, encroaching on roads or railway tracks must go. The top court, which was hearing petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes, extended its interim order barring demolitions across the country without prior judicial approval.

The Supreme Court said India was a secular country and its directions on bulldozer action and anti-encroachment drives would be irrespective of any religion. The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, reserved its judgment.

"We are a secular country and our direction will be for all, irrespective of religion or community. If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurdwara or dargah or temple, it cannot obstruct the public," the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court said.

The court also suggested that notices and orders for demolitions could be digitised and uploaded to an online portal to ensure more transparency.

On September 17, the Supreme Court barred demolitions across the country till October 1, except in cases involving encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies.

'JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT NEEDED ON BULLDOZER ACTION'

During the hearing, the court asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh governments, if being an accused in a criminal case could 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," the Solicitor General said.

The Supreme Court said it was "problematic" when certain illegal constructions are selectively demolished, and it is later found that the owner is an accused in a criminal case.

"If there are two structures in violation and action is taken only against one... and you find in the background there is a criminal offence, then what? Some solution has to be found for that... some judicial oversight," Justice Viswanathan said.

Justice Gavai said, "For unauthorised constructions, there has to be one law, not dependent on community."

However, the Solicitor General said the petitioners' claim on the use of demolitions as a punitive measure accounted for less than 2% of the actual demolitions carried out in the country.

While reserving its order, the Supreme Court said a time frame between the final demolition order and its implementation should be given to the affected person to make alternative arrangements.