The Supreme Court docket on Wednesday rapped the Uttar Pradesh authorities for what it termed ‘high-handed’ and ‘unlawful’ actions in demolishing residential homes for a road-widening undertaking with out following due course of.
A 3-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, was listening to a writ petition filed by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose home in Maharajganj district was demolished in 2019 allegedly with out prior discover.
Throughout the listening to, the bench got here down closely on the state authorities’s strategy, questioning the legality and ethics of bulldozing properties with out issuing formal notices.
“You say that he was an encroacher. However how are you going to begin demolishing individuals’s homes like that? That is lawlessness, strolling into anyone’s home and demolishing it with out discover,” Chief Justice Chandrachud stated.
“You possibly can’t include bulldozers and demolish the constructions in a single day. You do not give the household time to vacate. What in regards to the family articles inside the home?” he requested the counsel representing the UP authorities.
The highest courtroom questioned the absence of procedural safeguards, mentioning that residents had been solely knowledgeable by loudspeaker bulletins, which doesn’t fulfill authorized necessities for such actions.
The courtroom additionally ordered the state to pay compensation of Rs 25 lakh to Aakash for the damages brought about.
Senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, representing the petitioner, knowledgeable the courtroom that 123 extra buildings had additionally been demolished underneath related circumstances, with residents notified solely by public bulletins.
Expressing his disapproval, Justice JB Pardiwala, who was on the bench alongside Justice Manoj Mishra, said, “That is very high-handed. You possibly can’t include bulldozers and demolish homes in a single day. There must be a due course of adopted. A drumbeat doesn’t suffice as discover.”
The highest courtroom additionally cited a report from the Nationwide Human Rights Fee (NHRC) which indicated that the alleged encroachment in query lined solely 3.70 sq. meters.
The justices asserted that even when encroachment existed, it didn’t justify the whole demolition of properties. Of their order, they labeled the demolitions as “utterly high-handed and with out the authority of regulation”.
Justice Pardiwala pressed the UP authorities’s counsel on the choice to demolish buildings past the alleged encroached space, questioning the premise for such intensive motion.
The Supreme Court docket additionally ordered the state Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry into the roles of the officers and contractors accountable for these demolitions, instructing that disciplinary actions be taken inside a month.
The bench even laid down pointers for authorities conducting demolitions in road-widening tasks:
- Authorities should confirm the present street width and subject notices if encroachments are detected
- If objections are raised, they have to be addressed by a proper order, adhering to ideas of pure justice
Moreover, the courtroom confused that if an encroachment is confirmed, satisfactory time must be given for residents to vacate. The bench additionally directed {that a} copy of this judgment be circulated to all states to make sure uniformity and adherence to authorized procedures in related road-widening initiatives throughout the nation.
