Supreme Court’s interim stay on bulldozer action to continue, decision reserved
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK New Delhi, Oct 1: The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in the bulldozer action case following…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, Oct 1: The Supreme Court has reserved its decision in the bulldozer action case following the hearing. Additionally, the Supreme Court has extended the interim order to not demolish any property without permission until further notice.
The SC made a sharp remark regarding the removal of temples, mosques, or other religious places constructed in public areas. During the proceedings of the bulldozer case, the Supreme Court stated that India is a secular country.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan heard the case.
Demolition can’t be done just because a person is accused or convicted
During the hearing, Justice Gawai clarified that demolition cannot be carried out solely because someone is accused or guilty. It is also essential to note that there should be a limited timeframe before demolition orders are issued. He mentioned that there are approximately 4-5 lakh demolition actions carried out in a year, as indicated by the statistics from the past few years.
Also Read- Arti Sarin appointed as first woman chief of Armed Forces Medical Services
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that there should be a provision for sending notices via registered mail and that a timeframe of 10 days should be provided. He mentioned that he wanted to present some facts, stating that an image was being created as if one community was being targeted.
Religious structures causing obstacle in public space must be removed
The bench responded that the court’s directives would apply to everyone, regardless of their religion or community.
The court stated that, indeed, regarding the removal of encroachments on public spaces, it has been made clear that if an encroachment is on a public road, sidewalk, drainage area, or railway line, then any religious structure in the middle of the road will be considered a public obstacle.
Justice Gavai mentioned that if a timeframe of 10 days is provided, people will be able to approach the court. In response, Mehta argued that this would interfere with local municipal regulations, making it difficult to remove illegal constructions in this manner.
Justice Gavai stated that whether it is a temple, dargah, or any other religious site, if public safety is at stake and the site is located in a public place, it must be removed. He emphasized that the safety of the public is paramount.
Justice KV Vishwanathan added that if there are two structures in violation and action is taken against only one, it is natural to raise questions about that.
