Supreme Court Criticizes “Bulldozer Justice” as Overstepping Legal Boundaries

The Gujarat government was issued a notice by the bench and was given four weeks to respond. The case involved a threat to demolish a family’s home in Kheda district, as a trespass case was registered against Javed Ali Mehboobamiya Saeed on September 1. Mr. Saeed’s lawyer presented evidence that he was a co-owner of the land based on revenue records and had permission to build a house on the land. The family had been living there for two decades across three generations.

The bench referenced a Supreme Court order from September 2, proposing guidelines before demolishing homes. The bench stated that a family member’s alleged involvement in a crime should not invite action against other family members or their legally constructed residence. It emphasized that a case against Mr. Saeed had only been registered and needed to be proven in court through a legal process. The court expressed concern about the demolition threats, asserting that they were inconceivable in a nation where the law reigns supreme.

The court sought a response from the Gujarat government within four weeks and ordered that Mr. Saeed’s house cannot be demolished until further instructions. It also scheduled another hearing for September 17 and invited suggestions for dealing with the issue. This statement led to political dynamics, with conflicting statements from the Samajwadi Party and the BJP regarding the use of bulldozers in Uttar Pradesh. On September 2, another bench questioned the justification for demolishing a house simply because it belonged to an accused or convict.

The need for documented guidelines and a procedure was articulated. The matter was postponed for further hearing. This case had sparked a larger debate on the use of demolition as a punitive measure in the context of criminal activity.