Following the clashes in Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj last week, the “illegally constructed” 2-storey residence of Javed Mohammad, who was identified as the main conspirator behind the violence, was On Sunday the officers broke in. And this is not an isolated incident.
In both Kanpur and Prayagraj, bulldozers have been used to demolish “illegal properties” belonging to the protesters, who allegedly incited violence in the cities. In the case of Javed Mohammad, the house was demolished hours after the notice was pasted outside his house and his family was asked to vacate the premises.
Amid the ongoing debate over “bulldozer politics”, India Today spoke to former judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts on laws on removing illegal encroachments and the recent demolition drive across India.
What do former judges say
India Today spoke to several former Supreme Court and High Court judges to understand the legitimacy of the contentious issues and whether these demolition drives can be used as a coercive tactic against a particular class or community of people. Had been.
Former Chief Justice of India Justice RM Lodha said, “Due process of law must be followed for all citizens of India. Involvement in an offense does not mean that their property will be demolished. If the dispute is their property is concerned then the order of the appropriate court is required and notice has to be given to the person concerned, but demolition of any property without notice or for any other offense has no validity in the eyes of law.
Justice RM Lodha said, ‘Even if the person involved has committed a heinous crime, it does not mean that the government can go ahead and demolish the property. The competent court has to pass necessary orders to punish the person involved in the offence.”
Read also | Prophet comment line: property linked to Kanpur violence bulldozer to accused
Similarly, former Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court Justice Govind Mathur also criticized the work of Prayagraj Development Authority. Justice Govind Mathur observed, “An accused in a criminal case is required to be disposed of in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and on being found guilty, he may be punished in accordance with the Indian Penal Code or any other If any of its provisions in the special law are violated. No action could have been taken against an accused without conviction.”
This type of bulldozer business is different to our criminal jurisprudence,” said Justice Govind Mathur.
When asked whether these actions target any particular community, Justice Mathur said, “I do not know what is the intention of Prayagraj Development Authority, but the time chosen is about unfair action against a particular section of people.” leaves a mark.”
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Chelameswar told India Today, “There is some process of law to be followed and it is a requirement in every case. But having a case against a person is not a ground to demolish any property. It has to be followed by the municipal law of the area and it needs to be seen whether notice was issued to the person concerned and if not he can approach the competent court for redressal.
However, Justice Jasti Chelameswar said, “If the person got the notice and did not challenge it before the court, then it is his fault and the municipal authorities have acted according to the statue. And if the rights of any person are harmed then he has the right to approach the concerned court.”
removal of illegal encroachments
Additionally, Justice SN Dhingra as well as Justice Rajeev Sahai Endlaw, both former judges of the Delhi High Court, spoke about a law allowing demolition of illegal encroachments by following due process, as prescribed.
Read also | Bulldozer politics entered Andhra Pradesh; TDP’s Anna Canteen demolished | Video
Justice Dhingra said, “It is very clear in law that we do not have the concept of negative equality in India because then everyone will come and say that if person ‘A’ has not been arrested then why action against ‘B’.” No one can claim negative equality. Also any unauthorized construction has to be demolished as per law. If any property is to be demolished then due process has to be followed and if the administration does not follow it then the concerned The person can seek remedy from the competent court.
On the other hand, Justice Endlaw observed, “If there is some unauthorized encroachment, it has to be removed, but the law also says that the application of law has to be uniform. It cannot be done in a selective manner. There is no need to choose and choose.” There cannot be a policy. Merely because a person has been charged with an offence, is not a ground to destroy his property. It has to be done by following the legal process.”
“For demolition of illegal encroachments, there are provisions in the municipal law. If there is encroachment on public land then you need not give notice. At the same time if someone has encroached upon the government land and they go unnoticed for many years and they are free, then they cannot cry foul and say that they are being punished because they have acted against the government. Voice has been raised,” Justice Endlaw told India Today.
Monitoring of pending cases in court
The Prayagraj demolition comes even as several petitions are pending in various courts across the country challenging the arbitrary use of bulldozers by the authorities to be practiced in the absence of any valid grounds for doing so. Several petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court, the Allahabad High Court, the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as the Supreme Court, all with a common prayer that the demolition drive should be put on hold.
While the Supreme Court agreed to stay the demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri, another petition filed on similar grounds for the demolition drive at Shaheen Bagh was dismissed as a political party approached the court with a petition. Had knocked. The Delhi High Court had earlier refused to stay the demolition drive at Jahangirpuri, though it agreed to hear the matter which eventually ended in the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had completely refused to restrain the administration from bulldozing the houses of persons accused in criminal cases by dismissing a PIL on the issue.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Chief Justice RV Malimath and Justice Purushendra Kaurav said that if someone’s house is being demolished, they have legal remedies available to approach the courts.