For the second time in a month, the Supreme Court has made a strong comment on the bulldozer action. It has asked not to threaten to run the bulldozer. The Supreme Court said on Thursday that alleged involvement in a crime is not a basis for demolishing properties. The apex court ordered a municipal body in Gujarat to maintain status quo and not threaten to run a bulldozer on the house of an accused in a criminal case. The court said that in a country where law is supreme, such threats of demolition are unimaginable.
The court said that it cannot remain oblivious to such actions which can be seen as bulldozing the laws of the country. A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti said, “In a country where the action of the government is governed by the rule of law, a crime committed by a member of a family does not invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed house. Alleged involvement in a crime is not a ground for demolition of any property.”
The court said, “Moreover, the alleged crime must be proved through due legal process in the court. In a country where law is supreme, such vague threats of demolition cannot be ignored by the court. Otherwise, such actions can be seen as bulldozing the law of the country.”
The bench issued notice to the Gujarat government and the municipal body of Kathlal in the state’s Kheda district on a plea filed by Javed Ali M Syed seeking protection from the proposed demolition action. The court sought response of the state and the municipal body within four weeks. The counsel for the petitioner said an FIR was lodged against a member of the family on September 1.
The lawyer claimed that the municipal officials have threatened to run a bulldozer on the petitioner’s family’s house. The apex court agreed to review the case and listed it after a month. Let us tell you that earlier this month, while hearing another case, the Supreme Court had talked about making guidelines on bulldozer action soon. The court had termed it serious and worrying and said that the way action is being taken in some states is against the rules.