The Supreme Court’s verdict on the controversial trend known as ‘bulldozer justice’ provoked sharp political reactions across the country on Thursday. While some leaders hailed the decision, some voiced apprehensions.
In Maharashtra, Vijay Wadettiwar, the Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly and Congress leader, supported the verdict. He said, “This judgment is a tight slap on those who say ‘Batenge to Katenge’. This ‘politicking’, which started in Uttar Pradesh targeted one community and the poor. We welcome this Supreme Court decision.”
All that BJP leader and Deputy Chief Minister Rajendra Shukla of Madhya Pradesh said after the Supreme Court observation was: “Any direction from the Supreme Court is an order. If a comment was made on any specific action. It would be appropriate to discuss it only after understanding the full details.”
This didn’t spare Mohan Prakash, AICC charge of Bihar Congress either. He has also pointed out misusing this machinery against those named on FIRs. “The bulldozer is used on encroachments. But using it against someone based on an FIR is wrong. Today the Supreme Court has made its stand clear, but I fear the government may not accept it,” he said.
In Uttar Pradesh, the ruling got backing from Om Prakash Rajbhar, Minister of the Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party. “The entire country welcomes the decision of the Supreme Court, including the government and opposition. The intention of the government is not to raze anybody’s house. If a criminal has constructed a house on government land illegally, the government will vacate that land. The government never demolishes houses on private land.”
Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court had issued strict guidelines to curb ‘bulldozer justice’. The Apex Court held that the executive can’t brand a person guilty or demolish his property without following due process. The Court ordered that no demolition would take place without a 15-day notice given by registered post and fixed on the property. The notice must specify the nature of the violation and the reasons for demolition. The Court also ordered videography of the demolitions. Failure to comply with the above would constitute contempt of court.
It also emphasized the sanctity of individual rights, stating that no property can be taken without following proper legal processes. This effectively readorned the separation of powers, reiterating that the executive could not substitute for the judiciary in determining guilt or demolitions.
Critics filed petitions against the practice of bulldozer demolitions, claiming it disproportionately affected marginalized and minority communities. The Supreme Court ruling now ensures that authorities will carry out demolitions in a just and lawful manner.
ANI
