New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Friday cautioned authorities in Gujarat over demolitions in the state, saying if it finds that they acted in contempt of its recent order against such action, it will ask them to restore the structures.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Gujarat authorities for alleged violation of the Supreme Court’s September 17 order in which it had said there should be no demolition of properties, including those belonging to people accused of crimes, across the country without its permission.

The bench refused to pass an order of status quo on the demolition near the Somnath temple in Gujarat.

On September 28, the authorities in Gujarat carried out a demolition drive to clear encroachments on government land near the Somnath temple in Gir Somnath district.

The administration had said religious structures and concrete houses were demolished during the drive that freed around 15 hectares of government land valued at Rs 60 crore.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for petitioner Summast Patni Muslim Jamat, said that despite the top court’s order, the authorities in Gujarat have demolished structures.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Gujarat authorities, said the structures were abutting the sea and were around 340 metres away from the Somnath temple.

“This falls within the exception carved out by your lordships,” the top law officer said.

In its order last month, the Supreme Court had said, “We further clarify that our order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also, to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law”.

During the hearing on Friday, the bench observed, “If we find that they are in contempt of our order, not only we will be sending them to jail but we will ask them to restore all this.” Without issuing a notice on the plea, the bench asked Mr Mehta to file a response and posted the matter for hearing on October 16.

Senior advocate Hegde said notices issued to people there (area where demolitions were carried out) did not speak of any demolition, even though the demolition drive was conducted on September 28.

There were 45 houses, 10 mosques and five dargahs in the area spanning 57 acres, he said.

The top court had dealt with a similar matter from Assam on September 30 and besides issuing a notice on that plea, it had asked the parties to maintain the status quo, he added.

Mr Mehta said he would file a reply to the petition.

The matter pertains to government land and the proceedings started in 2023. Notices were issued by the authority concerned and a personal hearing was given to the parties, he said.

People had approached several authorities, including the Waqf Tribunal, but no interim injunction was granted, he added.

“We will not issue a notice, you file your reply,” the bench told Mr Mehta.

When Mr Hegde requested the bench that the status quo be maintained, Mr Mehta said somebody had filed a petition before the Gujarat High Court for the same but it was refused.

“We have made it clear that in case we find that they are in contempt, we will direct them to restore the position as it was,” the bench said, adding that its earlier order applies equally to everyone.

On October 1, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas which alleged that properties, including belonging those accused of crime, were being demolished in several states.

The top court had said it would lay down pan-India guidelines on demolition of properties. It had said in its September 17 order that it would continue till it decides the matter. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Coming down heavily on ‘bulldozer justice’ for the second time this month, the Supreme Court has said alleged involvement in crime is no grounds for demolition of a property and such actions can be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the country.

Hearing a petition by Javed Ali Mehboobamiya Saeed of Gujarat’s Kheda district, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti was told on Thursday that municipal officers had threatened to demolish his family’s home with a bulldozer after a case of trespass was registered against him on September 1.

Mr Saeed’s lawyer told the court that revenue records of Kathlal village, where the home stands, showed that his client was a co-owner of the land. A resolution passed by the gram panchayat in August 2004 granted permission to build a house on the land, where three generations of his family had been living for two decades. 

The lawyer also cited the September 2 order of the Supreme Court, in which it had proposed a set of guidelines to be followed before demolishing homes.  

After hearing both sides, the bench said that in a country where the actions of the state are governed by the rule of law, a violation by a member of a family cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. 

“Alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolition of a property,” the bench said, pointing out that only a case had been registered against Mr Saeed and it has to be proved in court through a legal process. 

“The court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats, which are inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land,” the bench said. 

The court issued a notice to the Gujarat government and sought its reply within four weeks. It also said that Mr Saeed’s house cannot be demolished until further orders.

On September 2, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had asked how a house could be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case.

“How can demolition be just because he is an accused or even a convict… If construction is unauthorised, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will lay down a procedure. You are saying demolition only if violation of municipal laws. There is a need for guidelines, it needs to be documented,” the bench said. Stating that it would hear the matter again on September 17, the court also invited suggestions for dealing with the issue.

Bulldozer Politics

The Supreme Court’s observations on September 2 had also sparked an exchange of barbs among political leaders.

“As soon as BJP is wiped out (after the Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh) and the Samajwadi government is formed, the bulldozers of the entire state will head towards Gorakhpur,” Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav had said, referring to the home district of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. 

Hitting back, the BJP leader had said that only people with a “bulldozer-like capability” could operate the heavy machinery. “Not everyone’s hands can fit… it requires both heart and mind,” Yogi Adityanath had said. 

The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister is widely seen as the initiator of the bulldozer being used as a political tool and had even used the machine in his campaign in the 2022 state elections. Other BJP-ruled states then went on to adopt Uttar Pradesh’s playbook of demolishing the houses of criminals to send out a strong message against crime. 

New Delhi:

Yogi Adityanath and Akhilesh Yadav traded ‘bulldozer’ barbs this week after the Samajwadi Party leader’s jibe Tuesday about re-directing heavy earth-movers – the symbol of ‘justice’ meted out by BJP-ruled states, where bulldozers illegally wreck property belonging to accused in criminal cases – to the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister’s home district of Gorakhpur after the 2027 state election.

The retort came Wednesday. Only people with a “bulldozer-like capability” could operate the machines, Yogi Adityanath said, “Not everyone’s hands can fit… it requires both heart and mind.”

He also swiped at his rival’s ‘Tipu’ sobriquet; “… now ‘Tipu’ is trying to become a ‘sultan’,” he said at a private event in Lucknow, referring to the 18th century ruler of the former Kingdom of Mysore – a figure at the centre of the BJP’s Hindu vs Muslim narrative before last year’s Karnataka election.

The Chief Minister also called Mr Yadav’s chances of winning the ’27 UP poll a “daydream”, and accused his predecessor and his uncle, Shivpal Yadav, of extorting money during his term.

The counter (to the counter) was fired within hours. On X Mr Yadav posted: “If you and your bulldozer are so successful, form a separate party and contest elections with a bulldozer as the symbol.”

“Your illusions and pride will be shattered…” Mr Yadav chuckled online, predicting defeat for Yogi Adityanath, who is widely seen as one of the most powerful figures within the BJP and even a potential prime ministerial candidate. That possible elevation, however, was dismissed by Mr Yadav.

अगर आप और आपका बुलडोज़र इतना ही सफल है तो अलग पार्टी बनाकर ‘बुलडोज़र’ चुनाव चिन्ह लेकर चुनाव लड़ जाइए। आपका भ्रम भी टूट जाएगा और घमंड भी। वैसे भी आपके जो हालात हैं, उसमें आप भाजपा में होते हुए भी ‘नहीं’ के बराबर ही हैं, अलग पार्टी तो आपको आज नहीं तो कल बनानी ही पड़ेगी।

— Akhilesh Yadav (@yadavakhilesh) September 4, 2024

“… in your current situation, even if you are in the BJP, it (a tilt at the Prime Minister’s post) is as good as a ‘no’,” he said, “You will have to form a separate party… if not today then tomorrow.”

Yadav Kickstarts Bulldozer Battle

The squabble broke after Mr Yadav’s gibe Tuesday.

“As soon as BJP is wiped out (in UP after the Assembly election) and the Samajwadi government is formed, the bulldozers of the entire state will head towards Gorakhpur,” the opposition leader said.

READ | “How Can House Be Demolished…” Court On ‘Bulldozer Justice’

Akhilesh Yadav’s ‘bulldozer’ digs came hours after a key observation by the Supreme Court.

The court questioned the idea of ‘bulldozer justice’ and wanted to know how a building could be demolished simply because it belongs to an accused, or even a convict, in a criminal case.

The observation was significant given the frequency with which BJP-ruled states bulldozed buildings of individuals accused in criminal cases; recent examples cited in court included the demolition a home in Rajasthan’s Jaipur because the owner’s son had stabbed a classmate. A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan took a dim view of the controversial practice.

“Is Land For His Residence Approved?” Yadav’s Jibe

This afternoon Mr Yadav followed up Tuesday’s jab with a pointed question at the Uttar Pradesh government, demanding an apology from the state for houses and buildings bulldozed till now, and suggested the BJP change its name to Bhartiya Jogi Party. “When so many names (of cities and towns in UP) have been changed, then Chief Minister should change name of Bhartiya Janata Party too…”

Akhilesh Yadav also threw in a cheeky side-swipe by asking the Chief Minister if the land on which his home has been built meets regulatory requirements. “The people who scared others away with bulldozers… who demolished others houses… tell me, is the land for his residence approved?”

“You deliberately ran the bulldozer over (buildings belonging to) people from whom you wanted to revenge… to humiliate them. But the Supreme Court has said a bulldozer cannot be used…”

“So, will the government apologise for bulldozer ops going on till now or not?”

With input from agencies

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.