Representational image only. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

More than a hundred writers, translators and publishers have written an open letter accusing the ‘JCB Prize for Literature’ of hypocrisy, saying the British bulldozer manufacturer company, which funds it, played a “major role in the horrifying destruction of homes” across India and Palestine.

They said the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government has consistently used JCB bulldozers in a “systemic campaign” to demolish Muslim homes, shops and places of worship across various Indian States — “an ongoing project disturbingly named ‘bulldozer justice'”.

The letter was released two days before the winners of the ‘JCB Prize for Literature’ were announced on November 23.

In an open letter signed by celebrated poet and critic K. Satchidanandan, poet and publisher Asad Zaidi, poet Jacinta Kerketta, poet and novelist Meena Kandasamy, and poet and activist Cynthia Stephen, the writers said JCB (India) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the British construction equipment manufacturer JC Bamford Excavators Limited (JCB), which has been one of the most influential donors to the British Conservative party.

“The employment of JCB equipment within far-right Hindu supremacist projects in India comes as no surprise in this context,” the open letter read.

JCB bulldozers are also responsible for home demolitions and settlement expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, owing to a contract between JCB’s agent and the Israeli Ministry of Defence, thus playing a “key role in Israel’s continued attempts at ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and demolitions in Kashmir”.

“The JCB has created a literature prize “aimed at marginalised and diverse writers”, while simultaneously “remaining complicit in destroying the lives and livelihoods of so many as a form of ‘punishment’,” it said.

“As writers, we will not stand for such disingenuous claims of support for the literary community. This prize cannot wash off the blood on JCB’s hands. India’s up-and-coming writers deserve better,” they said.

Several writers from Palestine and West Asia, including Palestinian novelist Isabella Hammad and poet Rafeef Ziadah, Egyptian novelist Ahdaf Soueif, Iraqi poet and novelist Sinan Antoon and Omar Robert Hamilton, novelist and Director of the Palestinian Festival of Literature are also among the signatories.

Irish novelist and screenwriter Ronan Bennett, novelist Andrew O’Hagan and novelist and screenwriter Nikesh Shukla are also among the signatories.

“How ironic that the term JCB is more popular in India as the machine that has aided the demolition of literally hundreds of thousands of houses of the common citizens of India in certain States of India. To see it associated with a very ‘prestigious’ literary prize for Indian literature is surreal.

“Heavy earthmoving equipment is like a knife. It can be used to build infrastructure for human comfort, but in recent years has been more used to destroy the lives of the poor and marginalised. We condemn such hypocrisy on the part of the company and those administering the prize,” poet Cynthia Stephen said.

Writer and journalist Zia Us Salam said, “JCB has become a symbol of State-sponsored hate and intimidation of minorities and marginalised groups in Modi’s India. It is trying to gain legitimacy with the literature prize. This has nothing to do with promotion of free speech, diversity and pluralism. As writers, it’s critical that we speak up against this flagrant violation of human rights,” he said.

New Delhi:

The demolition of a house solely because the person residing there is either an accused or convicted in a criminal case will amount to inflicting “collective punishment” on the entire family, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan made these observations in its significant judgement which laid down pan-India guidelines on demolition of properties.

The apex court said when a particular structure is chosen all of a sudden for demolition and the rest of similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even being touched, “mala fide may loom large”.

The bench noted that the construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights and for an average citizen it is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations.

“In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein a number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure,” the bench said.

It said the Constitutional scheme and criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same.

Observing that the right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution, the apex court said a house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future.

“Having a house or a roof over one’s head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available,” the bench said in its 95-page verdict.

It noted the arguments of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who had appeared for the Centre and some states, that in some cases it may be by sheer coincidence that properties that were in breach of local municipal laws governing them also happen to belong to accused persons.

“In such cases, where the authorities indulge in arbitrary pick and choose of the structures and it is established that soon before initiation of such an action an occupant of the structure was found to be involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal structure but an action of penalising the accused without even trying him before the court of law,” the bench said.

It said no doubt, such a presumption could be rebuttable but the authorities will have to satisfy the court that it did not intend to penalise a person accused by demolishing the structure.

It said the principle of the rule of law needs to be considered even with regard to the demolition of houses that are required to be razed for breach of local laws.

“There may be certain unauthorised constructions which could be compoundable. There may be certain constructions wherein only part of the construction is required to be removed,” it said.

The bench said in such cases, the extreme step of demolition of the property would be disproportionate.

It said if the persons are to be dishoused, then for taking such steps, the authorities concerned must satisfy themselves that such an extreme step of demolition is only available and other options including compounding and demolition of only part of the house property are not available.

The top court delivered its verdict on pleas seeking the framing of guidelines on the demolition of properties in the country.

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

New Delhi:

The Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and legal process should not prejudge guilt of an accused, the Supreme Court said today, taking a tough stand on the issue of ‘bulldozer justice’ and laying down guidelines for carrying out demolition.

The bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered its judgment on petitions challenging bulldozer action against people accused of crimes. This trend, which caught on in several states, is referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’. State authorities have, in the past, said only illegal structures were demolished in such cases. But several petitions were filed before the court, flagging the extrajudicial nature of the action.

Justice Gavai said it is the dream of every family to have a house and an important question before the court was whether the Executive should be allowed to take away someone’s shelter. “The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic government… the issue relates to fairness in the criminal justice system, which mandates that legal process should not prejudge guilt of accused,” the bench said.

“We have considered the rights guaranteed under the Constitution that provide protection to individuals from arbitrary State action. The rule of law provides a framework to make sure individuals know property will not be taken away arbitrarily,” it added.

On the separation of powers, the bench said adjudicatory functions are entrusted to the judiciary and the “Executive cannot replace the Judiciary”. “We have referred to the doctrine of public trust and public accountability. We have concluded that if Executive demolishes the house of person arbitrarily merely because he is accused, it violates principle of separation of powers,” Justice Gavai said.

The court said accountability must be fixed on public officials who take law into their hands and act in a high-handed manner. “State and its officials can’t take arbitrary and excessive measures. If any officer of the State has abused his power or acted in total arbitrary or malafide manner, he cannot be spared,” it added.

Justice Gavai pointed that when a particular structure is chosen for demolition suddenly and similar other properties are not touched, then the presumption could be that the real motive was not razing the illegal structure, but “penalising without trial”.

“For an average citizen, construction of a house is the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations. House embodies collective hope of security and future. If this is taken away, authorities must satisfy it is the only way,” the bench said.

The court also questioned if authorities can demolish a house and deprive its residents of shelter if only one person residing there is an accused.

Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for demolitions. It said no demolition should be carried out without a showcause notice. The person this notice is served to can respond within 15 days or the time provided in local civic laws, whichever is later.

This notice must have information of the nature of unauthorised construction, details on the specific violation and the grounds for demolition, the court said. The authority concerned must hear the accused and then pass a final order, it added. The house owner will be given a 15-day period to remove the illegal structure and authorities will proceed with a demolition only if an appellate authority doesn’t pause the order.

Violation of the court’s directions would lead to contempt proceedings, the bench warned. Officers should be told that if a demolition exercise is found to be in violation of norms, they will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property, the court said. The cost for this, the court said, would be recovered from the officials’ salary.

The court said all local municipal authorities must set up a digital portal within three months that has details of showcause notices served and final orders on illegal structures.

After making strong observations on the practice of demolishing houses of criminals to send out a strong message against crime, which has come to be known as ‘bulldozer justice’, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a set of pan-India guidelines for such demolitions on Wednesday. 

Hearing several petitions, including one filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, arguing that properties of people were being bulldozed in several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Gujarat, without following due process, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan had asked on September 2 how a house could be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case. 

Noting affidavits filed by states, the bench had said, “We propose to lay down some guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concern raised is taken care of.”

In another hearing the same month, the bench had halted the unauthorised demolition of private property anywhere in India till October 1 and warned against “grandstanding” and “glorification” of the practice.

“We made it clear that we won’t stop demolition of unauthorised construction… but the executive can’t be a ‘judge’ (of what is illegal),” it had said.

On October 1, the bench had reserved its judgment but said the order on pausing unauthorised demolitions would continue until it gave its verdict. The proposed guidelines are also expected to be issued with the verdict on Wednesday. 

‘Running A Bulldozer Over Laws’

Hearing related petitions, other benches of the Supreme Court, including one led by former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, have also made strong remarks on the issue. 

On a petition by a man in Gujarat that municipal officers had threatened to demolish his family’s home with a bulldozer after a case of trespass was registered against him, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti had said alleged involvement in crime is no grounds for demolition of property and such actions can be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the country.

“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. 

‘Can’t Throttle Voices’

In another case of “illegal” demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, a bench of then Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had also laid down the procedure to be followed during road widening and removal of encroachments.

“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,” the bench had said in a judgment given last week, which was uploaded just before Chief Justice DY Chandrachud demitted office. 

“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 Justice Chandrachud-led bench had said. 

The guidelines issued by the bench included asking authorities to verify records and maps, conducting surveys to identify actual encroachments, issuing notices to people accused of encroachment, considering objections, and giving adequate time for the removal of encroachments.

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on Wednesday on pleas seeking framing of guidelines on demolition of properties in the country.

A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai had reserved the verdict on October 1.

The top court had said it would lay down pan-India guidelines while making clear that any religious structure in the middle of a road, be it a ‘dargah’ or a temple, “has to go” because public interest is paramount.

It was said merely because somebody is an accused or even a convict cannot be a ground for the demolition of property.

A batch of pleas alleged that properties, including those accused of a crime, were being demolished in several states.

“Whatever we are laying down, we are a secular country. We are laying it down for all the citizens, for all the institutions, not for any particular community,” the bench had said.

The top court was hearing the petitions filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and others seeking directions to various state governments to ensure no further demolition of properties of those accused in cases of rioting and violence takes place.

While hearing the matter earlier, the top court had observed that even one instance of illegal demolition was against the “ethos” of the Constitution.

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

New Delhi:

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.

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.