'Bulldozer Justice Simply Unacceptable': CJI Chandrachud's Parting Blow To Yogi Govt's 'Bulldozer Action'
In the final written verdict, the Supreme Court has said that citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads.
The outgoing Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, in his last verdict uploaded on the Supreme Court website has sent out a strong message to Yogi Adityanath led government in Uttar Pradesh on 'Bulldozer Justice' where houses of persons accused in a completely unrelated crime were allegedly demolished by the state as "unauthorised occupation."
A journalist had moved top court alleging "buldozer action" by the government because one of his news report that did not sit right with the state government. Last week, the Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Chandrachud, while orally pronouncing the verdict on petition, had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay Rs 25 lakh penal compensation as an interim relief to the journalist.
In the final written verdict, CJI Chandrachud has said, "Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads."
He further adds that the ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead and Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law.
"The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments. There are municipal laws and town-planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. Where such legislation exists the safeguards which are provided in it must be observed. We propose to lay down certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards which must be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. The state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures. Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law," the verdict penned by CJI Chandrachud read.
The top court has further held that if it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. The verdict further states that officials who carry out such an activity must be proceeded against for disciplinary action.
"Officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for disciplinary action. Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions. Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. Any action in respect of public or private property must be backed by due process of law," The judgment added.
The petitioner had alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question.
SC Guidelines For State Govts Before Demolishing Properties For Road Widening Project:
The top court further penned down following guidelines for state before acting in pursuance of a road widening project:
(i) Ascertain the existing width of the road in terms of official records/maps;
(ii) Carry out a survey/demarcation to ascertain whether there is any encroachment on the existing road with reference to the existing records/maps;
(iii) If an encroachment is found, issue a proper, written notice to the encroachers to remove the encroachment;
(iv) In the event that the noticee raises an objection with regard to the correctness or the validity of the notice, decide the objection by a speaking order in due compliance with the principles of natural justice;
(v) If the objection is rejected, furnish reasonable notice to the person against whom adverse action is proposed and upon the failure of the person concerned to act, proceed in accordance with law, to remove the encroachment unless restrained by an order of the competent authority or court; and
(vi) If the existing width of road including the State land adjoining the road is not sufficient to accommodate the widening of the road, steps must be taken by the State to acquire the land in accordance with law before undertaking the road widening exercise.
SC Directs Rs 25 Lakh As Interim Penal Cost In One Month, Action Agiant Erring Offcials In 4 Months
While holding the action by the Yogi government high handed, the top court directed:
(i) The State must make payment of punitive compensation;
(ii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to have an enquiry conducted into the entire matter pertaining to the illegal demolition, against all concerned officers of the state and the contractors who are responsible for the illegal demolition. In addition, disciplinary action must be initiated against any officer who is found to be involved in the illegal demolition, not only of the house of the petitioner but of other similarly situated properties in the area which were similarly demolished without adequate notice; and
(iii) The Chief Secretary of the Government of UP shall lodge a First Information Report as directed by the NHRC. The FIR shall be investigated by the CB-CID.
The State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to pay the petitioner compensation in the amount of Rs twenty-five Lakhs, as an interim measure. By way of abundant caution, we clarify that this compensation shall not come in the way of the petitioner, should he choose to pursue any other proceedings which are available in law for compensation for the demolition and for the taking over of property without the authority of law.
The Chief Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh shall, after conducting the enquiry, take suitable action including penal measures to ensure accountability of individual officials who have acted in violation of law. The implementation of these directions shall be initiated no later than within a period of one month from the date of this order. Disciplinary proceedings shall be completed within four months of initiation.
Top Headlines
Trending News
