The Supreme Court emphasized today that public safety takes precedence over religious structures encroaching on roads, water bodies, or railway tracks, directing that such structures must be removed.

The court reinforced that India, as a secular country, applies its anti-encroachment policies equally to all citizens, regardless of their religion. The directions for bulldozer action will be uniform and non-discriminatory.

A bench consisting of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing petitions challenging the practice of "bulldozer justice," where authorities demolish structures connected to people accused of crimes.

This trend has been prevalent in several states, with authorities maintaining that only illegal constructions have been targeted.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh, clarified that being accused in a criminal case, no matter how severe, cannot justify bulldozer action. He stressed that proper legal processes must be followed, including advance notice to affected parties. Mehta noted that existing municipal laws already have provisions for notifying citizens about demolitions and suggested a digitized system to ensure transparency.

Responding to concerns about targeting specific communities, the Solicitor General assured the court that the directions apply universally and are not aimed at any particular group. The bench also pointed out the varying laws between municipal corporations and panchayats, suggesting the need for clear, unified procedures across regions.

"We are a secular country and our directions will be for all, irrespective of religion or community. Of course, for encroachment we have said... if it is on a public road, footpath, water body or railway line area, it has to go, public safety is paramount. If there is any religious structure in the middle of the road, be it gurudwara or dargah or temple, it cannot obstruct public," the court said.

Justice Gavai said, "For unauthorised construction, there has to be one law, it is not dependent on religion or faith or beliefs."

Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the UN Rapporteur, presented arguments regarding the availability of housing. The Solicitor General raised an objection, stating, "I understand their intentions; we do not want this to be internationalized. Our constitutional courts are sufficiently powerful, and our government is cooperating non-adversarially. We do not require the involvement of an international agency."

Senior Advocate CU Singh, representing one of the petitioners, emphasized that his main argument was against the use of bulldozer actions as a crime-fighting strategy. In response, Mr. Mehta stated that such actions targeting minorities would occur "far and few between." The bench interjected, pointing out, "It is not just a few individuals; the figure is 4.45 lakh.''

The court stated that being accused of a crime cannot serve as justification for the demolition of property; such actions can only be taken in instances of violations of civic regulations.

The court has prolonged the interim stay on demolitions conducted without its authorization.