New Delhi — The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that public safety must take precedence over the existence of religious structures that encroach upon public land. In a significant ruling, the court stated that any religious edifice obstructing roads, water bodies, or railway tracks must be removed, emphasizing that the principle applies to all citizens, regardless of their faith.
Key Points from the Supreme Court’s Ruling
The remarks came from a bench consisting of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan during the hearing of petitions challenging the controversial practice often termed “bulldozer justice.” This practice involves the demolition of properties linked to individuals accused of various crimes, and it has gained traction in several states across India.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh. He clarified that being accused of a crime, even serious offenses like rape or terrorism, should not justify bulldozer actions against individuals. Mehta stressed the importance of prior notice before any demolition occurs, highlighting that municipal laws typically require a notification process.
Addressing Concerns of Targeting
The Supreme Court has expressed its commitment to ensuring that enforcement actions are applied uniformly across all communities. Justice Gavai stated, “We are a secular country, and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community.” The court firmly stated that if a religious structure—be it a gurdwara, dargah, or temple—is situated on public land, it must not impede public access.
Justice Gavai further emphasized that the laws regarding unauthorized constructions should be uniform and not influenced by religious beliefs. “For unauthorized construction, there has to be one law,” he remarked, underscoring the necessity for consistency in the enforcement of civic regulations.
Calls for Better Processes
The court suggested that there should be a digitized online portal where citizens can access information about encroachments and related notices. This would increase transparency and allow individuals to stay informed about potential demolition actions.
In response to the concerns raised during the hearing, the Solicitor General expressed apprehension that the court might be issuing directives based on specific instances perceived as targeting one community. However, the bench clarified its position, emphasizing that the enforcement of laws regarding encroachments must be equitable and devoid of communal bias.
International Scrutiny and Local Solutions
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the UN Rapporteur, argued on issues related to housing availability. Mehta objected, asserting that Indian constitutional courts possess adequate authority to address such matters independently without external interference. He stated, “Our Constitutional courts are powerful enough, and our government is assisting non-adversarially. We don’t need an international agency to come in.”
Further complicating the situation, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, representing one of the petitioners, urged the court to ensure that bulldozer actions are not misused as a crime-fighting mechanism. This reflects a growing concern among legal advocates about the potential abuse of state power in enforcing laws.
Statistical Context
Mehta noted that bulldozer actions against minority communities have been infrequent. However, the bench countered this assertion, referring to the alarming figure of 4.45 lakh demolitions associated with the ongoing anti-encroachment drives. This stark statistic highlights the widespread impact of such actions on numerous individuals and communities across the nation.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling underscores the imperative of balancing public safety with the respect for religious sentiments. By establishing a clear directive against the demolition of property based solely on accusations of crimes, the court seeks to uphold civic rules while ensuring that the enforcement of such regulations is fair and just. The discussion around bulldozer actions raises essential questions about the intersection of law, public safety, and religious freedom in India, reinforcing the need for equitable treatment of all citizens under the law.
As the situation unfolds, the court’s commitment to maintaining a secular framework in its directives could set a precedent for future legal interpretations regarding public safety and religious structures in India.