Dynamite News Here is what CJI DY Chandrachud observed against bulldozer action on Manoj Tibrewal Aakash’ petition
The verdict was pronounced by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud-led three-judge bench on the petition of senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash. Here are some major observations by the CJI DY Chandrachud regarding this case. Read further on Dynamite News:
New Delhi: The Supreme Court historic verdict against bulldozer action is making headlines nationwide. The verdict, pronounced by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud-led three-judge bench on the petition of senior journalist Manoj Tibrewal Aakash on last Wednesday, has created a buzz across the country including the major Print, Broadcast and online media platforms.
Please read below some major observations by CJI DY Chandrachud while pronouncing the landmark verdict:
Also Read |
VIDEO: Watch the video of five years ago in which Manoj Tibrewal Aakash' family was tortured by bulldozer
‘The petitioner has alleged that the demolition was a reprisal for a newspaper report which contained allegations of wrongdoing in relation to the construction of the road in question. We need not engage with this aspect, save and except to the extent that it supplies the background to the grievance of the petitioner. In any case, such high-handed and unilateral action by the State Government cannot be countenanced. Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence.
‘There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. The law does not undoubtedly condone unlawful occupation of public property and encroachments.
‘There are municipal laws and town-planning legislation which contain adequate provisions for dealing with illegal encroachments. Where such legislation exists the safeguards which are provided in it must be observed. We propose to lay down certain minimum thresholds of procedural safeguards which must be fulfilled before taking action against properties of citizens. The state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures.
‘Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. Officials of the state who carry out or sanction such unlawful action must be proceeded against for disciplinary action.
‘Their infractions of law must invite criminal sanctions. Public accountability for public officials must be the norm. Any action in respect of public or private property must be backed by due process of law.’