New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Tuesday said if there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurudwara or dargah or temple, it must go and stressed that India is a secular country and court's directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community.
The top court said that if demolition is found to be illegal then property will have to be restituted and added that it will lay down guidelines for all citizens and not for any particular community on the issue of demolition of properties.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan said: "We are a secular country and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community."
The top court made it clear that violation of its guidelines regarding demolition will amount to contempt of court, and emphasised that if demolition is found to be illegal then property will have to be restored.
Regarding encroachment by building religious structures on public spaces, the bench said, "If it is on a public road, footpath, water body or railway line area, it has to go, public safety is paramount. If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurudwara or dargah or temple, it cannot obstruct public".
Justice Gavai said unauthorised construction of a person belonging to any community that has to go, irrespective of his religion or belief.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for three states - Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh – before the court. During the hearing, Mehta contended that it may not be in good taste that the directions were being issued by the court on a few instances alleging that one community was being targeted.
The top court made it clear that its directions will be applicable pan-India, and merely because a person is an accused or even a convict, it can't be a ground for the demolition of property. "We are laying it down for all the citizens, for all the institutions, not for any particular community," said the bench.
The top court said even if it is proved that unauthorised construction, 15 days-time be given for making alternative arrangements. Justice Viswanathan said it is not a good sight to see old people, women, and children left on the road.
The apex court said there are different laws for municipal corporations and panchayats and added, "There should also be an online portal so people are aware, once you digitise it there is a record."
Justice Gavai observed that for unauthorised construction, there has to be one law, and it should not be dependent on religion or faith or beliefs.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for UN Rapporteur and made some submissions before the court on housing availability. The Solicitor General objected to it and made it clear that the government is not taking any adversarial stand and it is assisting the court, and there is no need for any international agency to assist the court.
The apex court said it is going to make it clear that if someone is an accused or if somebody is a convict, it cannot be a ground for demolition.
"Unless, there is a violation of any municipal laws, panchayat laws, and it has to be preceded by notice, proper opportunity for hearing…even after the order is passed there has to be some window (before demolition)," said Justice Gavai.
"We will also clarify that courts should be cautious when they are dealing with unauthorised construction," said Justice Gavai. Justice Viswanathan said 4.45 lakh is a consistent figure given regarding the number of demolitions happened in the last few years.
"Judicial oversight is required for the correctness of the order….." said Justice Viswanathan, adding that eviction can be restored but demolition is irreversible.
On the aspect of restitution, Justice Viswanathan said, "at least for the family to make some alternative arrangements for 15 days. Suppose they do not want to contest. Even if it is unauthorised it is no happy site to see women and children on the road….after 15 days nothing is going to be lost if demolition is done….". "What joy, he has built it there will be some spastic child there…," added Justice Viswanathan.
Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing for one of the petitioners, submitted that bulldozer action not be used as a crime-fighting measure.
The top court has extended the interim pause on demolitions carried out without its permission. After hearing submissions, the top court reserved its decision on a batch of petitions seeking directions to the central and state governments to refrain from bulldosing homes or shops of the accused in criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.
