On August 17, the house of an accused was bulldozed in Udaipur, Rajasthan.
“A house is everyone’s dream, it is a struggle of several years and a sign of respect. If the house is demolished, the policeman will have to prove that it is the last resort. The policeman himself cannot not become a judge.” The Supreme Court made the comment on Wednesday while delivering its verdict on the bulldozer action.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan issued 15 guidelines for the entire country on bulldozer action.
The court said that if the decision to demolish the house was taken, a period of 15 days should be given. A videography of the house demolition action is required. If an agent breaches the guidelines, they will have the property rebuilt at their own expense and will also pay compensation.
Everyone lives in this dream of having their own house, their own yard. The human heart wishes that the dream of owning a home should never be lost.
After continued bulldozing action in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind filed a petition in the Supreme Court. It was alleged that Muslims were being targeted in BJP-ruled states and bulldozing was underway.
The central government had argued that the court should not tie our hands with its decision. No one’s property was demolished because they committed a crime. Action was taken under the law against the illegal encroachment of the accused.
4 final comments from the Supreme Court on the bulldozer action
1. Every man’s dream is to have a house, can it be torn down? Justice BR Gavai said: “A man always dreams that his house will never be taken away from him. Everyone dreams of having a roof over their head. such a man? Can the roof of someone who is accused or convicted be taken away, can their house be demolished without following the prescribed procedure?
2. Officials are not judges and cannot decide who is guilty. The Supreme Court said: “If a person is merely an accused, it is completely unconstitutional to demolish his property. The authorities cannot decide who is guilty, they cannot judge. yourself, whether anyone is guilty or not. It’s going beyond the limits.
3. Police officers should not be spared when they act with bad intentions. The Supreme Court said: “If a police officer demolishes a person’s house because he is accused, it is wrong. If the policeman takes justice into his own hands, then he must act. “Arbitrary and unilateral action cannot be taken. If an officer does this, there should be a system to take action against him. The officer cannot be spared.”
4. Demolition of a house is the last resort, this must be proven. Justice Gavai said: “A house is a matter of socio-economic fabric. It’s not just a house, it’s a struggle that lasts for years, it gives a feeling of respect. If the house is demolished, the police officer will have to prove his innocence until proven guilty. In such a situation, his entire family will be punished.
Comments from the Supreme Court during the last 2 hearings
September 17: The Center said – don’t tie your hands, the Court said – the sky will not burst. The Supreme Court declared on September 17 that the bulldozing action would not take place before October 1. Until the next hearing, no bulldozing action should be taken in the country. When the Center questioned this order that the hands of constitutional institutions cannot be tied in this manner. Then, Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Vishwanathan said, “If the proceedings are stopped for two weeks, the sky will not burst. …
September 12: The Supreme Court said – Bulldozing of laws The Supreme Court also declared on September 12 that bulldozing amounts to bulldozing of the laws of the land. The matter was before Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice SVN Bhatti. In fact, a family in Gujarat was threatened by a bulldozing action by the municipality. The petitioner is a co-owner of a land at Kathlal in Kheda district. …
Bulldozing action took place in 3 states 1. Madhya Pradesh
On August 24, the bungalow of Haji Shahzad Ali, an accused in the stone-pelting case at police in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, was bulldozed.
Action against those accused of pelting stones at police in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh in August. Within 24 hours of stone pelting at Kotwali police station in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh on August 21, the government had razed a three-storey mansion worth Rs 20 crore. built on 20 thousand square feet. 2. Rajasthan: A bulldozer rammed into the house of the accused after he was stabbed in Udaipur, Rajasthan In August, a child studying in class 10 in a government school in Udaipur had stabbed another and injured him. This was followed by arson and violent protests across the city. On August 17, a bulldozing action took place at the accused student’s home. Earlier, on the instructions of the government, the Forest Department had issued a notice to the father of the accused, Salim Shaikh, to vacate the house built in an illegal colony. 3. In June, 6 properties of 2 accused were vandalized in Moradabad and Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. In Moradabad, a bulldozer was smashed into the house of the person who had tried to kidnap a married woman. The accused had shot the woman’s parents and brother who were protesting against the kidnapping. At the same time, in Bareilly, the hotel of hotel owner Zeeshan, who had beaten young Sunny to death over a dispute over bread, was razed to the ground. Sunny’s birthday was June 26. He was assassinated that very day.
…………..
Bulldozing action 12 thousand times in 2 years in MP, Kamal Nath gave case, Shivraj gave speed, why is Mohan also on the same path?
The bulldozer action in Madhya Pradesh began in the 1990s. At that time, the bulldozer was a symbol of development. Former CM Babulal Gaur, while serving as Urban Administration Minister in the Patwa government, had used a bulldozer to remove encroachments. …
A new seat will decide the minority status of the UMA: the Supreme Court annuls the 1967 decision; In which it was said: “This is a central university, not a minority institute.
Now, a new bench of 3 judges will decide the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU). A panel of 7 Supreme Court justices overturned its own 1967 decision by a 4-3 majority. On November 8, the Supreme Court declared that an institution cannot lose its minority status simply because it was created under a central law. …