In his latest ruling on unlawful demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud states in full that “justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence.”
In addition to giving instructions to all states and Union Territories (UT) regarding the process to be followed during road-widening and encroachment clearance, the Supreme Court on Wednesday chastised the Uttar Pradesh government for a “illegal” demolition in 2019.
The UP government was also ordered by a bench consisting of Chief Justice Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, to compensate the man whose home was demolished in 2019 for a road-widening project with Rs 25 lakh.
“… There is a grave danger that if high-handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons,” Chief Justice Chandracud said in the order.
“Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments,” he said.
“Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted, the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter,” the Supreme Court said.
The UP chief secretary was then instructed by the Supreme Court to look into the issue surrounding a residence in the Maharajganj district and take appropriate measures. The bench went into detail about the procedures that a state or its instrumentality must follow before implementing a road-widening project.
According to the Supreme Court, if an encroachment is discovered, the state is required to notify the encroacher to remove it. If the legitimacy and correctness of the notice are contested, the state will issue a “speaking order” in accordance with natural justice principles.
In a scenario of the objection being rejected, a reasonable notice would be given to the person against whom the adverse action was proposed, to remove the encroachment, it added.
