Coming down heavily on ‘bulldozer justice’ for the second time this month, the Supreme Court has said alleged involvement in crime is no grounds for demolition of a property and such actions can be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the country.

Hearing a petition by Javed Ali Mehboobamiya Saeed of Gujarat’s Kheda district, a bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti was told on Thursday that municipal officers had threatened to demolish his family’s home with a bulldozer after a case of trespass was registered against him on September 1.

Mr Saeed’s lawyer told the court that revenue records of Kathlal village, where the home stands, showed that his client was a co-owner of the land. A resolution passed by the gram panchayat in August 2004 granted permission to build a house on the land, where three generations of his family had been living for two decades. 

The lawyer also cited the September 2 order of the Supreme Court, in which it had proposed a set of guidelines to be followed before demolishing homes.  

After hearing both sides, the bench said that in a country where the actions of the state are governed by the rule of law, a violation by a member of a family cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. 

“Alleged involvement in a crime is no ground for demolition of a property,” the bench said, pointing out that only a case had been registered against Mr Saeed and it has to be proved in court through a legal process. 

“The court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats, which are inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land,” the bench said. 

The court issued a notice to the Gujarat government and sought its reply within four weeks. It also said that Mr Saeed’s house cannot be demolished until further orders.

On September 2, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had asked how a house could be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case.

“How can demolition be just because he is an accused or even a convict… If construction is unauthorised, fine. There has to be some streamlining. We will lay down a procedure. You are saying demolition only if violation of municipal laws. There is a need for guidelines, it needs to be documented,” the bench said. Stating that it would hear the matter again on September 17, the court also invited suggestions for dealing with the issue.

Bulldozer Politics

The Supreme Court’s observations on September 2 had also sparked an exchange of barbs among political leaders.

“As soon as BJP is wiped out (after the Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh) and the Samajwadi government is formed, the bulldozers of the entire state will head towards Gorakhpur,” Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav had said, referring to the home district of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. 

Hitting back, the BJP leader had said that only people with a “bulldozer-like capability” could operate the heavy machinery. “Not everyone’s hands can fit… it requires both heart and mind,” Yogi Adityanath had said. 

The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister is widely seen as the initiator of the bulldozer being used as a political tool and had even used the machine in his campaign in the 2022 state elections. Other BJP-ruled states then went on to adopt Uttar Pradesh’s playbook of demolishing the houses of criminals to send out a strong message against crime. 

Kamala Harris decisively outperformed Donald Trump in the presidential debate, sparking baseless conspiracy theories among MAGA supporters. Despite Trump’s insistence on winning, consensus points to his defeat. Celebrity endorsements for Harris and criticism from notable figures have weakened Trump’s campaign, with even some Republicans questioning his capability to be in office.