Supreme Court asks how can there be omnibus order against demolitions of unauthorised constructions

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and P S Narasimha raised the query while hearing a petition by Muslim outfit Jamiat-Ulema-I-Hind challenging the bulldozer action on alleged unauthorised constructions in states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and said it will hear the matter on August 10. The outfit contended that the private properties of people who were accused in communal riots and other such incidents were selectively targeted for action.

“We all know the rule of law has to be followed, no dispute. But can we pass an omnibus order? If under the municipal law the construction is unauthorised, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities?” Justice Gavai asked.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Dushyant Dave said the “matter is extremely serious”. He pointed out that there was a report in Thursday’s Indian Express about the demolition of the house of a person accused of a crime in Assam. “We don’t want this culture. They have to act in accordance with the law… Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused of a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by rule of law,” said the counsel.

Senior advocate C U Singh, who also appeared for the petitioner, said that despite the direction for status quo in the case of demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri, similar modus operandi is followed in other places. He added the authorities have given three examples to say notices were issued. “We have given numerous cases, where police officers announced the demolition and demolished the houses of the accused,” he said.

“The problem is that the police authorities are announcing that the houses of the accused will be demolished. The SP of Kanpur, the SP of Saharanpur, they are announcing,” he contended.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered the submissions and said concerned authorities had filed replies that due procedure was followed and notices were issued. He added that the process of taking action against unauthorised structures had started much before the riots.

Pointing out that there were objections to the locus standi of the petitioner outfit, the SG pointed out that individual parties affected by the state action have approached the high courts and cautioned against creating “a sensationalising hype unnecessarily”.

Dave contended that “there is a pick and choose against other community”. He added there is no material to show that other unauthorised houses were acted against.

Referring to the case of Sainik Farm in the national capital, he said: “The entire Sainik Farm is illegal. But nobody has touched it in 50 years. Look at the illegal farmhouses in Delhi. No action (is) taken.” Intervening, Mehta said: “There is no other community. There is only (the) Indian community.”

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, said there is a powerful argument on rule of law but the factual foundation is wobbly. He asked :“Can your lordship pass an order that a house should not be demolished merely because he is an accused?”