Alleged role in crime shouldn't spark bulldozer action, SC told

NEW DELHI: Days after Supreme Court frowned upon the practice of " bulldozer justice ", various aggrieved parties including Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind suggested measures to curb it and told the court that alleged involvement in an offence should not be the trigger to demolish one's home or commercial property and two months of prior notice should be served to the owner and occupier of a property before bulldozing the place.

The parties filed their suggestions in court in compliance with its order seeking their proposals which could be incorporated in the guidelines to be framed by the SC. Observing that offences committed by a criminal could not be the ground for bulldozing his house, the court had on Sept 3 agreed to lay down pan-India guidelines to stop states from resorting to "bulldozer justice" as a deterrent against crimes.

Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind suggested that the court should direct that government officers, ministers, MLAs and MPs not to make any statement endorsing illegal and unconstitutional penal measures and that if such statements were made, then the same should be a cause for criminal prosecution. "In case the appropriate authority or the nominated officer is of the opinion that a particular dwelling unit, house, shop etc is liable to be demolished, the officer concerned shall do a survey of the neighbourhood in which the said house is located and shall record a finding as to how many houses or dwelling units in that locality are liable to be demolished for the reasons as prescribed in municipal law. Violation of this guideline shall attract penal consequences against the erring officers and the aggrieved person shall be adequately compensated for consequential effect of the violation," the suggestions, filed by senior advocate M R Shamshad, said.

"A minimum of two months from the date of service should be given to the owner to furnish a reply to the show cause. This would give the owner sufficient time to collect and obtain relevant supporting documents; for example the owner may have to apply for certified copies of public records including relevant title documents, mutation entries, building plans, any relevant notifications, bylaws etc or may have to file RTI applications to seek information," Jamiat said.

In a suggestion filed by senior advocate C U Singh and lawyer Fauzia Shakil, who represented one of the aggrieved parties whose house was demolished, they said demolition of houses and commercial establishments as a measure of crime control , maintenance of public order or collective or vicarious punishment was illegal and without the authority of law.

"Courts before which the order of demolition is challenged should examine if the proposed demolition action is actuated by malice and is in bad faith. Malice in law will be presumed and action will be ex facie malicious in the following cases: (a) If the trigger for initiation of the proceedings for demolition has a direct and proximate connection with the involvement of the owner/occupier of a member of his family in any criminal case. Then, the demolition is punitive and hence illegal, and the action will be malicious; (b) If the authority acts with undue haste in initiating proceedings for demolition; (c) If the authority has singled out or there has been a pick and choose of the dwelling house/commercial establishment of the owner/occupier while no action has been taken with respect to similarly situated neighbouring houses/establishments with the same violations and encroachments," they said.