'Be it a temple or a dargah, no religious building can become an obstacle in lives of people', said SC on bulldozer action

The bulldozer action case was heard in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. During this, the Supreme Court said that public safety is paramount and any religious structure encroaching on roads, water bodies or railway tracks should be removed. The court stressed that India is a secular country and its instructions for bulldozer action and anti-encroachment drive will be for all citizens, irrespective of the religion they follow.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta arrived for the UP government during the hearing. However, he has also appeared on behalf of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. He said, "I suggest that there should be a system of sending notices by registered post. 10 days should be given. I want to put some facts. Such an image is being created here as if a community is being targeted."

On the argument of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Justice Gavai said that we are in a secular system. Whether the illegal construction is of a Hindu or a Muslim... action should be taken. On this, Mehta said that this is exactly what happens. After this, Justice Vishwanathan said that if there are 2 illegal structures and you demolish only 1 of them on the basis of an allegation of a crime, then questions will definitely arise. During this, Justice Gavai said that when I was a judge in Mumbai, I myself had ordered the removal of illegal construction from the footpath, but we have to understand that being accused or convicted of a crime cannot be the basis for demolishing the house. This is being called 'Bulldozer Justice'.

Solicitor Mehta said that the notice is pasted on the wall. These people are demanding that this should be done in the presence of witnesses. On this, Justice Gavai said that if the notice can be fabricated, then witnesses can also be fabricated. This does not seem to be a solution. Justice Gavai said that if 10 days are given, then people will be able to knock the door of the court. On this, Mehta said that I would like to politely say that this would be tampering with the local municipal rules. In this way, it will be difficult to remove illegal construction.

After hearing Mehta's argument, Justice Vishwanathan said that a family living in a place should also get 15 days to make alternative arrangements. Children and elderly also live in the house. Where will people go suddenly? On this, Mehta said that I am just saying that the court should not give such a solution which is not in the law. After this, Justice Gavai said that we only want to give the same solution which is already in the law. We will not give any protection to the construction done on the road, footpath etc.