SC to hear in September pleas against demolition of properties of accused in criminal cases

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Monday it will hear in September the petitions filed by Muslim body ‘Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’ and others seeking directions to various state governments to ensure no further demolition of properties of those accused in cases of rioting and violence takes place.

The pleas came up for hearing before a bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the petitioners, told the bench the law on this needs to be settled for the reason that now it has become a “fashion” across the country to go and demolish people’s homes “without any sanctity of law”.

He referred to the recent incident in Sidhi district of Madhya Pradesh, where the house of an upper caste offender who allegedly urinated on a tribal man, was demolished, while acknowledging the act was despicable and the perpetrator needed to be taken to task.

“...but you cannot go and demolish his house. What about his family?” Dave said, adding, “everywhere in the country, it has become fashionable to exercise this power.”

The ‘Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’ had earlier filed a plea in the apex court on the issue of demolition of buildings in Jahangirpuri area of the national capital last year following communal clashes. Dave argued the apex court has said the right to shelter is right to life, and demolition of houses were carried out targeting a particular section of society in Delhi.

The bench said in the Delhi matter, a notice was issued by the authority concerned which talks about a joint encroachment removal programme.

“First, there has to be a satisfaction that the property we intend to demolish is an unauthorised structure which has been encroached upon and therefore it needs to be demolished,” it said. The bench said the case of the petitioners appeared to be that under the guise of encroachment removal, some personal scores were being settled and random buildings demolished.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to an affidavit filed in the matter concerning Uttar Pradesh. He told the bench that the affidavit says merely because a person is alleged to have been a part of an offence.