FIR against BDA officials for receiving Rs 1.70 cr bribe, cheating homemaker

Mangaluru: Six youths including teenagers have been arrested by the Bantwal Rural Police in connection with a brutal assault on 21-year-old Aboobakar (name changed to hide identity), an incident that was widely shared on social media after footage revealed the victim tied to a pole and violently beaten.

The arrested individuals, all from Kanchinadkapadavu, Sajipanadu village in Ullal Taluk, have been identified as Mohammad Sapwan (25), Mohammad Rizwan (25), Irfan (27), Anis Ahmad (19), Nasir (27), and Shakeer (18). According to police reports, the assault took place on November 7 in Kanchinadkapadavu.

The sequence of events began when Aboobakar was reportedly called to a residence in Kanchinadkapadavu by a female relative. Upon his arrival, he was confronted by the accused, who questioned his presence, tied him to a pole with ropes, and attacked him while he was shirtless. 

Aboobakar managed to file a police complaint the following day, detailing the assault. As his injuries worsened, he was admitted to a private hospital in Mangaluru.

While in the hospital, Aboobakar alleged that his attackers intended to kill him during the assault. This statement led to additional charges of attempted murder being filed. 

Police officials stated that the suspects were subsequently apprehended, charged with group assault and attempted murder, and placed in judicial custody. The investigation is ongoing, and further details are awaited.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.