'Public Safety Paramount, Religious Structures On Public Spaces Must Go': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made these remarks while hearing petitions challenging the recent trend of "bulldozer justice," which has seen state authorities demolish properties of individuals accused of crimes.

File Photo

The Supreme Court said today that public safety takes precedence, and any religious structure encroaching on roads, water bodies, or rail tracks must be demolished. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan stressed that India's secular fabric demands equal treatment for all citizens, regardless of religion. The court's directions on bulldozer action and anti-encroachment drives will apply universally.

In a landmark ruling today, the Supreme Court of India emphasized that public safety is paramount and ordered the removal of any religious structures encroaching on roads, water bodies, or railway tracks. The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, reinforced that India's secular framework requires that actions against illegal structures apply equally to all citizens, regardless of religion.

The court was hearing petitions challenging the recent trend of "bulldozer justice," which has seen state authorities demolish properties of individuals accused of crimes. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, clarified that being accused of a crime—regardless of its severity—cannot justify bulldozer actions against individuals. "No, absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism," Mehta stated, stressing that proper notice must be issued before any demolition.

Justice Gavai noted that municipal and panchayat laws must be adhered to and suggested implementing an online portal to ensure transparency. "There should also be an online portal so people are aware; once you digitize it, there is a record," he remarked.

Mehta raised concerns about the court potentially targeting specific communities, but the bench firmly rejected this notion. "We are a secular country, and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community," Gavai affirmed. He further stated, "If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road—be it a gurudwara, dargah, or temple—it cannot obstruct public space."

The court emphasized that laws regarding unauthorized construction must apply uniformly, irrespective of religious beliefs. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the UN Rapporteur, argued about housing availability, which prompted Mehta to object, asserting that India's constitutional courts are adequately equipped to handle such matters without external influence.

In response to concerns about the use of bulldozer actions as a crime-fighting measure, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh emphasized that these should not serve as a punitive measure. Mehta added that instances of bulldozer actions specifically targeting minorities would be "far and few between." However, the bench highlighted the scale of the issue, citing a figure of approximately 4.45 lakh demolitions.