The matter was being heard by Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan.|Photo: File Image The matter was being heard by Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan.|Photo: File Image 
Hearing petitions challenging bulldozer action on houses of persons accused of crimes, the Supreme Court once again clarified that demolition cannot be carried out merely on the basis of someone being an accused or convict.
The matter was being heard by Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan.
The apex court also extended its interim order of stay on demolitions without its prior permission.
We Are A Secular CountryAppearing for three states -- Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat -- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta noted that most municipal laws, depending on the subject matter being dealt with, have provision for issuance of notice. "Notices must be confined to specific violations of laws being invoked," SG said.
The apex court observed that there would be different laws even in one state, adding that all the notices issued and served could be digitised on an online portal.
The apex court said that whatever it lays down will be for the whole country as "we are a secular country".
Public Safety Is ParamountComing to encroachment on footpath, the Supreme Court reiterated that it has clarified, "If it's a public road, water bodies, railway lines...Whether it be temple, dargah, it has to go... public safety is paramount."
The top court said that when some unauthorised construction is selectively demolished and it is found that the owner was accused of a crime, it was problematic.
Justice Viswanathan observed, "I there are two structures in violation and action is taken only against one...and you find in the background there is a criminal offence, then what? Some solution has to be found for that... some judicial oversight."
No Demolition Without Permission: SC On Bulldozer Action In Country; Lists Some Exceptions "For unauthorised constructions, there has to be one law, not dependent on community," Justice Gavai said.
Notably, the apex court on September 17 had passed an interim order that no demolition is to be carried out without its permission unless it was on encroachments in public spaces.
The bench was mainly dealing with two pleas filed by Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind, raising the issue of state governments taking bulldozer action on the houses of persons accused of crimes as a disciplinary measure.
SG Mehta expressed concerns over the September 17 order, saying that the restraints placed by the top court could hinder the removal of genuine encroachments.
He said, "For the benefit of few, for a few cases of alleged injustices, let undue advantage not be taken by big builders and others."
Window Of TimeEmphasising that a demolition notice must be sent through a registered post to the actual owner of the property with acknowledgement due, the apex court said that there should be a window of time between the final demolition order and its implementation so that alternative arrangements can be made by the affected persons.
"We will clarify demolition can't be carried out merely because someone is an accused or convict. Also, consider, there should be a narrow window...even before orders for demolition are passed," Justice Gavai said, adding that, "Once an order is passed, you may protect them for 10-15 days...even if court entertains a grievance, question of stay will be decided within 1 month."
'Running Bulldozer Over Country's Laws': Supreme Court Slams Demolition Threats The Solicitor General however expressed concerns that such a general direction might lead to the amending of provisions of several local laws.
In response, Justice Viswanathan said, "Even if it's not authorised...it's not a happy sight to see women and children on the road. Elders coming out on roads... suppose they want to make alternative arrangements."
No Hearing Of Intervention ApplicationsMeanwhile, the Supreme Court dismissed hearing an intervention application filed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing and certain others, noting that it has already heard the parties directly affected by this.
The top court bench told the UN Expert's counsel Advocate Vrinda Grover that she could make suggestions in her personal capacity. Similary, the apex court refused to hear the intervention pleas moved by Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Nizam Pasha.
Finallyart casino, the top court concluded the hearing by extending the interim order of stay on demolitions without permission.