Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Sunday, November 24, 2024

Demolition Of House Of Accused Or Criminal Is Illegal And Unconstitutional

Posted in: Criminal Law
Thu, Nov 21, 24, 16:24, 3 Days ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 9831
Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

It is certainly a matter of some solace that after a very long span of time and so many incidents of repeated demolition of house of accused or criminal most unabashedly especially in UP among other States, we finally see that Supreme Court has got its act together and has not hesitated in saying most unequivocally in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 With Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 162 of 2022 and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 328 of 2022 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 866 and also in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 884 that was pronounced as recently as on November 13, 2024 that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime. It was held that permitting such action by the executive is contrary to the rule of law and also a violation of the principle of separation of powers, as it is for the judiciary to pronounce on the guilt of a person. It really pleases the innermost cockles of my heart to note that the Apex Court in this leading case most forcefully held while taking potshots at repeated demolitions that:
The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/properties of such an accused person without following the due process of law. It would strike at the basic principle of rule of law and is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/properties. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.”

We had seen earlier that the Apex Court as an interim measure had banned authorities from demolishing properties of those suspected of criminal activities without first seeking the Court’s permission. It must be also recalled that the Apex Court had then heard the matter and reserved its key verdict on October 1. It is worth noting that the top court had pronounced this landmark judgment in a batch of petitions that were filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and various other petitioners who were most pained by this ruthless bulldozing of houses due to which for one criminal act of a person his whole family was made to undergo worst punishment for no fault of theirs which definitely cannot be ever justified under any circumstances!

We must note that this notable judgment by Apex Court authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice BR Gavai for himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice KV Viswanathan begins with the famous adage that:
To have one’s own home, one’s own courtyard – this dream lives in every heart. It’s a longing that never fades, to never lose the dream of a home.” This is how the importance of shelter has been described by a famous Hindi poet ‘Pradeep’. It is a dream of every person, every family to have a shelter above their heads. A house is an embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals’ stability and security.”

It is very rightly pointed out in this most commendable judgment that:
The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where “might was right”. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of ‘the rule of law’, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law.”

It must be also mentioned that the Apex Court underscored that house demolition cannot be an action against a person convicted of an offence: "Such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law.” The Court also held that the public officials who demolish the properties in such a manner should be held squarely accountable. While highlighting the importance of restitution, the Apex Court observed that:
Public officials who take law in their hands and act in such a high-handed manner must be fastened with accountability...”

We need to also note that the Court also observed that such actions amount to imposing “collective punishment” on the family of the accused/convict. Further, when properties are selectively demolished, there is a presumption that it was a malafide action. It was also held that, "When a particular structure is chosen for demolition all of a sudden, and the rest of similar properties are not touched, the presumption could be that the real motive was not the illegal structure but the action of penalising without trial.”

What really baffles me most is that why in big States like UP where we see maximum cases of bulldozer demolishing, why there is only one High Court Bench created 76 years ago in 1948 by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru so close to Allahabad at Lucknow in Eastern UP alone and nowhere else even though UP tops the States list in having maximum number of pending cases and here too it is West UP which owes for majority of pending cases of UP as was acknowledged by Justice Jaswant Singh Commission headed by former Supreme Court Judge appointed by Centre itself about 50 years ago and it recommended permanent Bench for West UP at Agra yet not created and in States like Maharashtra which already had multiple High Court Benches at Nagpur and Panaji, one more was created at Aurangabad but not a single for UP even though maximum 3 Benches were recommended for undivided UP? Why incumbent CM Shri Yogi Adityanath in January 2024 presented a recommendation to Allahabad High Court for Bench in West UP but withdrew it the very next day? Why even Supreme Court never dares to order more High Court Benches in UP especially in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also as litigants have to travel whole night and half day till not even Lucknow but till Allahabad to seek justice which in itself is the biggest injustice and biggest betrayal of Constitution?

It is most horrifying to see that the most populated State of India with maximum pending cases has just one Bench and smaller States have multiple High Court Benches but Supreme Court also what to talk about others never dares to speak up on this worst injustice perpetrated most ruthlessly due to which hilly areas of undivided UP for which two Benches were recommended at Dehradun and Nainital yet not one created and so they agitated with many of them even sacrificing their lives and ultimately it was given separate High Court and separate Statehood so that more Benches are created as was recommended even by 230th Report of the Law Commission of India more than 15 years ago! This is the darkest chapter in the history of the Supreme Court that it refused to take suo motu cognizance of such an urgent matter! Why Allahabad High Court is biggest High Court in whole world with maximum members in all courts among all the States and yet has just one Bench only?

It is a settled proposition of law that tolerance of injustice in any form is a threat to justice in all forms in society still we see that this Bench issue has not been addressed or resolved even though lawyers of West UP have gone on strike for 6 months in 2001 and 2014-15 and strike every Saturday since last 43 years apart from so many other agitations and even hunger strikes yet no one has cared the least in such a compelling case!

Why Supreme Court in last 78 years has never sought to address it is truly incomprehensible and everything is left to Centre as we saw when Apex Court in November 2018 dismissed a PIL on High Court Bench in West UP while conceding there is genuine need but said that it was for Centre to decide which has done just absolutely nothing on it and most fraudulently implemented Justice Jaswant Singh Commission’s landmark recommendations only in few elite States which already had High Court Benches but not a single for UP for which maximum Benches were commended! This is the real tragedy and real rub!

Will Supreme Court keep waiting till 100 years for Centre to act knowing fully well that for Lucknow so near to Alllahabad not even one year after independence was taken but on this we see most unfortunately that even the Apex Court chooses to maintain a deafening silence while not lagging behind in taking note of even cheating in Mayor election as we saw some time back in Chandigarh! It is high time and Supreme Court must order multiple High Court Benches in Uttar Pradesh which has just one just like Rajasthan and lawless Bihar has none yet no one ever bothers to even spare a food of thought on this! This is what pinches me most!

Directions to curb Bulldozer Justice
Coming back to core issue, the Apex Court gave the following directions to curb such “raw bulldozer justice”:

 

  1. If order of demolition is passed, then time has to be given to appeal this order.
  2. No demolition is permissible without show cause notice. The notice is to be sent by registered post to the building owner and pasted outside the structure that is proposed to be demolished. At least 15 days from the date of notice and 7 days after the notice is served must be given before any further action is taken.
  3. The notice shall contain details of:
    • The nature of violations that led the authorities to propose demolition,
    • The date on which a personal hearing for the affected party is fixed, and
    • The authority before whom the hearing is fixed.
  4. After the notice is served, intimation of the proposed action is to be sent to the Collector and District Magistrate (DM).
  5. The Collector and DM are to appoint nodal officers in charge of demolition, etc., of municipal buildings.
  6. A designated digital portal is to be provided where details of such notice and the order passed are made available.
  7. After the personal hearing before the concerned authority, minutes shall be recorded. Once a final order is passed thereafter, it should address:
    • If the offence of constructing the unauthorised structure is compoundable, and
    • If only a part of the structure construction is found non-compoundable, why the extreme step of demolition is the only answer.
  8. Orders passed (on determining whether demolition is required) shall be displayed on the digital portal.
  9. Opportunity must be given to the owner to demolish or remove the unauthorised structure within 15 days of the order. Only if the appellate body has not stayed the order, the steps of demolition shall take place.
  10. Demolition proceedings are to be videographed. The video recording is to be preserved.
  11. A demolition report is also to be forwarded to the concerned municipal commissioner by email and shall also be displayed on the digital portal.


In sum, it is high time and all the State Governments especially UP must pay heed to what the Apex Court has held in this leading case and desist from demolishing houses and should instead most promptly work in creating more High Court Benches especially in West UP and so also in Gorakhpur which is in Purvanchal for whom incumbent CM Shri Yogi Adityanath thundered in Parliament 25 years ago for Bench and in 2015 even presented a Private Member Bill in Parliament and still even in his second term we see that nothing has materialized so far!

I still earnestly hope that more High Court Benches are created in UP so that the job of the judiciary is done by the judiciary only and not the executive as the Apex Court has itself noted in this leading case so very succinctly, sincerely and suavely in this leading case! It is high time and Supreme Court must at least now take suo motu cognizance of this most pressing issue also which will end the strike by lawyers of West UP every Saturday that has been going on since May 1981 till date! The earlier this is resolved, the better it shall be in the interest of litigants for whom lawyers are agitating as it is the litigants who have to travel so far till Allahabad to seek justice which is just not done!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
The general principle, is that a FIR cannot be depended upon a substantive piece of evidence.The article discusses the general priciple, along with exceptions to it.
Victim plays an important role in the criminal justice system but his/her welfare is not given due regard by the state instrumentality. Thus, the role of High Courts or the Supreme Court in our country in affirming and establishing their rights is dwelt in this article.
Can anybody really know what is going inside the heads of criminal lawyers? I mean, yes, we can pick bits of their intelligence during courtroom trials and through the legal documents that they draft.
Terrorism and organized crimes are interrelated in myriad forms. Infact in many illustration terrorism and organized crimes have converged and mutated.
Right to a copy of police report and other documents As per section 207 of CrPC, accused has the right to be furnished with the following in case the proceeding has been initiated on a police report:
In terms of Section 2 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed under the Constitution
The Oxford dictionary defines police as an official organization whose job is to make people obey the law and to prevent and solve crime
the Supreme Court let off three gang rapists after they claimed a ‘compromise formula’ with the victim and agreed to pay her a fine of Rs 50,000 each for their offence.
benefit those prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered a landmark judgment in the case of State of Uttarakhand v 1. Mehtab s/o Tahir Hassan 2. Sushil @Bhura s/o Gulab Singh Criminal Reference No. 1 of 2014 on April 27, 2018
this article helps you knowing how to become a criminal lawyer
helps you to know adultery and its types
In the landmark case of Manoj Singh Pawar v State of Uttarakhand & others Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2016 which was delivered on June 18, 2018, the Uttarakhand High Court issued a slew of landmark directions
Scope and ambit of Section 6 of Indian Evidence Act,1872
Victims of Crime Can Seek Cancellation of Bail: MP HC in Mahesh Pahade vs State of MP
State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra said clearly and convincingly that the court must not go deep into merits of the matter while considering an application for bail and all that needs to be established from the record is the existence of a prima facie case against the accused.
Yashwant v Maharashtra while the conviction of some police officers involved in a custodial torture which led to the death of a man was upheld, the Apex Court underscored on the need to develop and recognize the concept of democratic policing wherein crime control is not the only end, but the means to achieve this order is also equally important.
20 more people guilty of killing a 60-year-old Dalit man and his physically-challenged daughter. Upheld acquittals of 21 other accused, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish their guilt. So it was but natural that they had to be acquitted
No person accused of an offence punishable for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless
Accident under section 80 under the Indian Penal Code falls under the chapter of general exceptions. This article was made with the objective of keeping in mind the students of law who are nowadays in dire need of material which simplify the law than complicating it.
Nishan Singh v State of Punjab. Has ordered one Nishan Singh Brar, convicted of abduction and rape of a minor victim girl, and his mother Navjot Kaur to pay Rs 90 lakh towards compensation.
Rajesh Sharma v State of UP to regulate the purported gross misuse of Section 498A IPC have been modified just recently in a latest judgment titled Social Action Forum Manav for Manav Adhikar and another v Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice and others.
Kodungallur Film Society vs. Union of India has issued comprehensive guidelines to control vandalism by protesting mobs. Vandalism is vandalism and it cannot be justified under any circumstances. Those who indulge in it and those who instigate it must all be held clearly accountable and made to pay for what they have done most shamefully.
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. Absolutely right There can be no denying it
Joseph Shine case struck down the law of adultery under Section 497. It declared that adultery can be a ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriages but it cannot be a criminal offence. It invalidated the Section 497 of IPC as a violation of Articles 14 and 15 and under Article 21 of the Constitution
Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v/s Karnataka, Had no hesitation to concede right from the start while underscoring the rights of victims of crime that, The rights of victims of crime is a subject that has, unfortunately, only drawn sporadic attention of Parliament, the judiciary and civil society.
State of Kerala v Rasheed observed that while deciding an application to defer cross examination under Section 231(2) of the Cr.P.C. a balance must be struck between the rights of the accused, and the prerogative of the prosecution to lead evidence. The Apex Court in this landmark judgment also listed out practical guidelines.
Reena Hazarika v State of Assam that a solemn duty is cast on the court in the dispensation of justice to adequately consider the defence of the accused taken under Section 313 CrPC and to either accept or reject the same for reasons specified in writing.
Zulfikar Nasir & Ors v UP has set aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) officials in the 1987 Hashimpur mass murder case. The Delhi High Court has convicted all the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
In Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v Maharashtra it was held that the Special Leave Petitions filed in those cases where death sentence is awarded by the courts below, should not be dismissed without giving reasons, at least qua death sentence.
Shambhir & Ors v State upholding the conviction and punishment of over 80 rioters has brought some solace to all those affected people who lost their near and dear ones in the ghastly 1984 anti-Sikh riots which brought disrepute to our country and alienated many Sikhs from the national mainstream
Naman Singh alias Naman Pratap Singh and another vs. UP, Supreme Court held a reading of the FIR reveals that the police has registered the F.I.R on directions of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which was clearly impermissible in the law.
It has been a long and gruelling wait of 34 long years for the survivors of 1984 anti-Sikh riots to finally see one big leader Sajjan Kumar being sentenced to life term by Delhi High Court
Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v State of Maharashtra held that criminals are also entitled to life of dignity and probability of reformation/rehabilitation to be seriously and earnestly considered before awarding death sentence. It will help us better understand and appreciate the intricacies of law.
Sukhlal v The State of Madhya Pradesh 'life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is the exception' has laid down clearly that even when a crime is heinous or brutal, it may not still fall under the rarest of rare category.
Deepak v State of Madhya Pradesh in which has served to clarify the entire legal position under Section 319 CrPC, upheld a trial court order under Section 319 of the CrPc summoning accused who were in the past discharged by it ignoring the supplementary charge sheet against them.
It has to be said right at the outset that in a major reprieve for all the political leaders accused of being involved in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, in CBI, Mumbai vs Dahyaji Goharji Vanzara
Devi Lal v State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court has dispelled all misconceived notions about suspicion and reiterated that,
Madhya Pradesh v Kalyan Singh has finally set all doubts to rest on the nagging question of whether offences under Section 307 of IPC can be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties.
Dr Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v Maharashtra made it amply clear that if a person had not made the promise to marry with the sole intention to seduce a woman to indulge in sexual acts, such an act would not amount to rape.
Rajesh v State of Haryana conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
Nand Kishore v Madhya Pradesh has commuted to life imprisonment the death sentence which was earlier confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court of a convicted for the rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
Raju Jagdish Paswan v. Maharashtra has commuted the death penalty of a man accused of rape and murder of a nine year old girl and sentenced him to 30 years imprisonment without remission.
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee v CBI permitting the application filed by the prosecution for summoning a hand writing expert in a corruption case of which the trial had started in 1985. On expected lines, the Bench accordingly delivered its significant judgment thus laying down the correct proposition of law to be followed always in such cases
Sukhpal Singh v Punjab that the inability of the prosecution to establish motive in a case of circumstantial evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case. Importance of motive in determining the culpability of the accused but refused to acknowledge it as the sole criteria for not convicting the accused in the absence of motive.
Gagan Kumar v Punjab it is a mandatory legal requirement for Magistrate to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concurrently or consecutively.
Dnyaneshwar Suresh Borkar v Maharashtra Even poem can help save a death convict from gallows. The Apex Court has in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment commuted the death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence
Himachal Pradesh v Vijay Kumar Supreme court held about acid attack crime that a crime of this nature does not deserve any kind of clemency.
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Imprisonment Appears To Be An Altogether Inappropriate Punishment: SC
S. Sreesanth v. The Board of Control For Cricket In India the Supreme Court set aside a life ban imposed on former Indian cricketer S Sreesanth in connection with the 2013 IPL spot-fixing scandal and asked the BCCI Disciplinary Committee to take a fresh call on the quantum of his punishment under the Anti-Corruption Code.
Adding Additional Accused To Invoke Section 319 CrPC Stronger Evidence Than Mere Probability of Complicity of A Person Required: SC stated in Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab
Top