How Supreme Court Invoked Poet Pradeep's Verses on Sanctity of Home While Halting Arbitrary Demolitions That Rendered 7.38 Lakh Homeless

"अपना घर हो, अपना आंगन हो, इस ख्वाब में हर कोई जीता है। इंसान के दिल की ये चाहत है, कि एक घर का सपना कभी न छूटे।"

(To have one's own home, one's own courtyard – this dream lives in every heart. It's a longing that never fades, to never lose the dream of a home.)

New Delhi- In an unprecedented blend of judicial wisdom and poetic sensitivity, the Supreme Court of India chose these touching verses from poet Pradeep to open its landmark judgment against "bulldozer justice" on Wednesday. The choice was deeply symbolic – as the Court prepared to address the harsh reality of 1.53 lakh homes demolished across seven states, rendering 7.38 lakh people homeless, it first paused to acknowledge the profound human significance of what a home means.

The bench, headed by Justice BR Gavai and comprising Justice KV Viswanathan, used this evocative Hindi poem to underscore that a home represents far more than just a physical structure – it embodies the collective aspirations, security, and stability of families.

The lines convey that the dream of having a shelter above one's head is not just a fundamental right but a deeply human aspiration that transcends religious and social boundaries.

This poetic prelude set the stage for one of the most significant judgments in recent times, where the Court would go on to establish stringent guidelines against arbitrary demolitions that have increasingly been used as a punitive measure across BJP-ruled states. The judgment comes amid mounting evidence of selective demolitions targeting minority communities, opposition leaders, and social activists.

Data reveals the staggering scale of demolitions: approximately 1.53 lakh homes were razed across Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Haryana, Assam, and Delhi. These demolitions were often carried out immediately after FIRs were registered, without proper notices or hearing opportunities, under the pretext of removing illegal constructions or crime prevention.

The bench, emphasized that executive authorities cannot act as "judges in their own cause." The court stated, "When a structure is suddenly demolished while others remain, a presumption could be drawn that the motive was not to bring down the illegal structure but to penalize the accused before trial."

The poem's universal message about the sanctity of home resonated powerfully with the Court's assertion that administrative actions cannot be allowed to shatter this basic human dream without due process of law.

The bench said, "It is also to be noted that the construction of a house has an aspect of socio-economic rights. For an average citizen, the construction of a house is often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams, and aspirations. A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security, and a future. Having a house or a roof over one’s head gives satisfaction to any person. It gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. If this is to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available."

The Udaipur Stabbing Case & Bulldozer Action

The recent Udaipur case exemplifies the practices the Supreme Court seeks to end. The People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) brought attention to the demolition of a Muslim family's home after their minor son was accused in a stabbing incident. Despite 200 houses existing in the same area, only this family's home was targeted, with merely four days' notice before demolition.

"We are a secular country. Whatever directions will be passed, will apply pan-India irrespective of religion," the Supreme Court emphasized, laying down mandatory guidelines including:

• A minimum 15-day notice period before any demolition

• Service of notice through registered post and prominent display on the structure

• Opportunity for affected parties to seek legal remedies

• Protection against pre-trial punishment through demolition

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) district committee in Udaipur, welcoming the verdict, provided detailed statistics of the demolitions. District Secretary Rajesh Singhvi termed the judgment "a check on the autocratic behavior of BJP governments and bureaucracy," while City Secretary Hiralal Salvi emphasized its role in protecting thousands from arbitrary displacement.

The PUCL's letter to the Rajasthan High Court regarding the Udaipur case highlighted how such demolitions often follow a pattern of targeting specific communities. The organization pointed out that nowhere in the Juvenile Justice Act is the state authorized to take such punitive measures against families of accused minors.

Advocate Rajendra Vasita, a CPI(M) councilor, noted that the judgment would serve as a "constitutional shield" by establishing personal accountability for officials ordering illegal demolitions. The Supreme Court's directive for reconstruction in cases of illegal demolitions offers hope for affected families seeking redress.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's concerns about these guidelines being issued based on allegations of targeting one particular community were addressed by the Court's emphasis on India's secular fabric. The Court clarified that while unauthorized constructions on public land or court-ordered demolitions would not be protected, arbitrary executive action would no longer be tolerated.

The judgment marks a watershed moment in protecting citizens' rights against arbitrary state action. Rights groups have called for immediate implementation of the guidelines, demanding resettlement and compensation for affected families. As the verdict takes effect, its implementation will be closely watched, particularly in cases like Udaipur that highlight the intersection of law enforcement, communal tensions, and civil rights.

The Supreme Court's intervention comes at a crucial time when, according to data presented by civil rights groups, thousands of families across multiple states face the threat of arbitrary demolition. The judgment not only provides immediate relief to vulnerable communities but also establishes a precedent for accountable governance and due process in property-related actions by state authorities.