NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing house of a journalist to implement a road widening project without following the due process and directed it to pay him Rs 25 lakh as compensation.
“You can't come with a bulldozer and demolish the house overnight,” the top court told the state government.
Supreme Court Condemns UP Govt’s “Lawless” Demolition Tactics
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra slammed the state authorities for their "high-handedness" in making the announcement on the site by loudspeaker before the demolition and called it as “lawlessness”.
The court said the state authorities cannot simply walk into somebody's house and demolish it without notice.
Orders Inquiry into Unlawful Action; Directs Immediate Compensation
The bench directed the UP chief secretary to conduct an inquiry into illegal demolition in Maharajganj district.
The court was dealing with a suo motu writ petition in 2020 based on a letter complaint sent by journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash, whose house in District Maharajganj was demolished in 2019.
Aakash, who earlier worked for Doordarshan, is currently editor in chief of Dynamite news.
Senior advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar and advocate Shubham Kulshreshtha appeared for Aakash before the apex court.
The state government claimed that the Aakash had encroached upon the public land.
"You say that he was an encroacher of 3.7 metres. We take it, we are not giving him a certificate for it. But, how can you start demolishing people's houses like that,” the bench asked the state counsel.
The bench questioned the state authorities on failing to follow the due process as it was claimed no notice was issued. “You only went to the site and informed the people through loudspeaker,” the court asked the state government.
The court was informed that over 100 other constructions were also demolished and people were just given information through public announcements.
The bench felt the authorities were supposed to give time to families to vacate.
"What about the household articles? There has to be due process followed,” the bench said.
The court also relied upon a report of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that, at the highest, there was an encroachment of 3.70 metres but it was not a justification to demolish the entire house. The commission had recommended the grant of interim compensation to the petitioner, registration of FIR in the issue, and initiation of departmental action against the officers.
