A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions challenging the controversial practice of bulldozer action against individuals accused of crimes. This trend, often termed "bulldozer justice," has been increasingly adopted by several state governments. State authorities, however, have maintained that these actions were aimed solely at demolishing illegal structures.

Representing the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that criminal accusations alone, regardless of the severity of the crime, cannot justify the use of bulldozer action against properties. "No, absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism," he stated, adding that proper procedures, such as the issuance of advance notices, must be followed in accordance with municipal laws.

The court echoed this sentiment, pointing out that different laws govern municipal corporations and panchayats and suggested the creation of an online portal for greater transparency in such matters. “Once you digitize it, there is a record,” the bench noted, emphasizing the need for accountability in the process.

Mr. Mehta raised concerns that the court’s directions were being influenced by a few instances that suggested one community was being unfairly targeted. The court swiftly responded by reiterating that its rulings would apply equally across all communities. “Public safety is paramount,” the bench declared, adding that encroachments, whether religious or otherwise, that obstruct public roads, footpaths, water bodies, or railway lines, would have to be removed. "It doesn't matter if it’s a gurdwara, dargah, or temple — if it's in the middle of the road, it cannot obstruct the public."

Justice Gavai emphasized that unauthorised constructions must be subject to a uniform legal framework, with no exceptions made for religious structures.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing a petitioner, argued that bulldozer action should not be used as a crime-fighting measure. Mr. Mehta assured the court that such instances involving minority communities would be rare but noted that 4.45 lakh properties were involved in total.

The Supreme Court affirmed that property demolition can only be justified in cases where civic laws are violated, not as a punitive measure for criminal accusations. The interim pause on demolitions carried out without proper notice remains in effect until further notice.

A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions challenging the controversial practice of bulldozer action against individuals accused of crimes. This trend, often termed "bulldozer justice," has been increasingly adopted by several state governments. State authorities, however, have maintained that these actions were aimed solely at demolishing illegal structures.

Representing the states of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that criminal accusations alone, regardless of the severity of the crime, cannot justify the use of bulldozer action against properties. "No, absolutely not, even for heinous crimes like rape or terrorism," he stated, adding that proper procedures, such as the issuance of advance notices, must be followed in accordance with municipal laws.

The court echoed this sentiment, pointing out that different laws govern municipal corporations and panchayats and suggested the creation of an online portal for greater transparency in such matters. “Once you digitize it, there is a record,” the bench noted, emphasizing the need for accountability in the process.

Mr. Mehta raised concerns that the court’s directions were being influenced by a few instances that suggested one community was being unfairly targeted. The court swiftly responded by reiterating that its rulings would apply equally across all communities. “Public safety is paramount,” the bench declared, adding that encroachments, whether religious or otherwise, that obstruct public roads, footpaths, water bodies, or railway lines, would have to be removed. "It doesn't matter if it’s a gurdwara, dargah, or temple — if it's in the middle of the road, it cannot obstruct the public."

Justice Gavai emphasized that unauthorised constructions must be subject to a uniform legal framework, with no exceptions made for religious structures.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing a petitioner, argued that bulldozer action should not be used as a crime-fighting measure. Mr. Mehta assured the court that such instances involving minority communities would be rare but noted that 4.45 lakh properties were involved in total.

The Supreme Court affirmed that property demolition can only be justified in cases where civic laws are violated, not as a punitive measure for criminal accusations. The interim pause on demolitions carried out without proper notice remains in effect until further notice.