Demolitions blatantly disregard law

 There being no legal justification for demoli­tion of houses of offenders, the Uttar Pradesh Government’s order and action to demolish the homes of persons accused of disturbing public peace is illegal. As a rule, criminal offences can only be pun­ished with punishments prescribed under the books of statutes.

The executive action of Prayagraj Mu­nicipal Corporation’s demolishing the home of the person accused of disturbing public peace on Friday when Muslim congregationists raised demands to ar­rest TV anchor Nupur Sharma for causing sacrilege, should therefore constitute an illegitimate action by the state.

But matter does not stand there. In the last three months, such demolitions were undertaken by the civic authorities in Jahangiripuri in Delhi, Khar­gone in Madhya Pradesh and Khambath in Gujarat. Coming in quick sequence, it is not difficult to per­ceive a common strand i.e., a state policy of collec­tive punishment of the offenders, mainly Muslims, protesting against excesses.

Of course, the State Assemblies of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh recently enacted laws for the recovery of damages caused to properties during disturbances to public order. But neither of these lay down any provision for destruction of property of the offenders.

The law under which these demolitions were car­ried out mentions encroachment or unauthorized constructions. These laws and regulations differ from state to state and from one civic body to another and there are set procedures to follow in matters of removal of encroachment or to bring down illegal constructions.

This raises major legal concerns due to the illegality of the action. Even a cursory glance would suggest that the bulldozing activity blatantly disregards the due process of law and established judicial precedents regarding eviction as laid down by the Supreme Court under Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) Judgement.

The Court had rejected the plea of the Corporation to evict and deport the pavement and slum dwellers to their native places and recognized their right to life guaranteed by the Article 21. The court had even maintained that they had a right to be heard and a reasonable oppor­tunity to depart “before the force is applied to expel them.”

As for the case in Prayagraj, the vengefulness and vindictive nature of the action is too plain to be missed. If indeed the congregationists were respon­sible for riotous behavior, the State was well within his right to prosecute them under various sections of the Indian Penal Code rather than deploying civic laws to deprive them of the right to dignity, liveli­hood and housing.

Moreover, the serving of notice and providing a period of notice are essential tenets of all municipal laws for eviction and demolition. Not alone this, even the occupants of such controversial properties need to be heard under the law. The Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 also lays down such safeguards.

With such illegal demolitions being undertaken by the State Governments under the Bharatiya Janata Party, it is appropriate for the Supreme Court to inter­vene in the matter and direct the state to desist from illegal action.