Bulldozer Justice

Recently, the Supreme Court proposed to lay down “pan-India” guidelines on the issue over bulldozer justice.

Crucial Insights on the Recent Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Court criticised the practice of demolishing properties based on criminal accusations. 

• Background: The court was hearing a plea against the demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area soon after the 2022 riots. 
  • Point raised by Petitioners: Many state governments were increasingly resorting to the use of bulldozers to demolish properties of people accused in crimes.
  • Response by Government: All demolitions carried out in the state strictly followed procedure.
• Need for Comprehensive Guidelines: Pointing to concerns over bulldozers being used to demolish the houses of people accused of some crime in some states, the Court said for “pan-India” guidelines.
  • The Court emphasised the need for due legal process and states that comprehensive guidelines are essential to ensure that demolitions follow proper procedures and do not target legal structures or communities.
  • It also invited suggestions from the concerned parties for the proposed guidelines.
• No Protection to Unauthorised Property: The Court made it clear that it would not protect unauthorised constructions. 
  • Every municipal law has a provision for demolition of unauthorised construction and the Court is not going to protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment on public roads.
    • The bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 17.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

About Bulldozer Justice

It is the heavy-handed approach of administration or judiciary, where decisions are swiftly made and enforced, often sidelining due process, public consultation, or other procedural protocols. 

• Refers: ‘Bulldozer justice’, also known as bulldozer politics, refers to the practice of using the heavy-duty piece of machinery to demolish houses of alleged criminals, communal violence rioters and accused criminals.
• Penalty: It represents a kind of group penalty, where punishment is inflicted before guilt is determined and even extends to innocent family members of the accused.
• Emergence of the Bulldozer Justice: As part of ‘bulldozer justice’, houses, shops and small establishments have been bulldozed across India, especially in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Assam and Maharashtra.
  • Uttar Pradesh: In September 2017, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, issued a warning about using bulldozers against those involved in crime. 
    • Soon,he earned the nickname of ‘Bulldozer Baba’. 
  • Madhya Pradesh: In 2022, Madhya Pradesh’s former Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan turned into ‘bulldozer mama’ when he ordered authorities to demolish 16 houses and 29 shops across four locations in Khargone following communal clashes.
  • Delhi: Bulldozer justice was on display in April 2022 following the communal clashes in North West Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. 
  • Maharashtra: The Maharashtra authorities resorted to bulldozer politics in Mumbai’s Mira Road suburb, two days after the area saw communal clashes. 
  • Haryana: In Nuh too, bulldozer justice was also on display, days after communal violence broke out, killing six people. 
• Safeguards for Prevention:
  • Survey before Demolition: The courts have mandated that the administration must undertake a survey before carrying out demolitions beyond enforcing basic procedural protocols like giving sufficient notice. 
  • Rehabilitation: Survey aims to determine if the residents are eligible for rehabilitation programs.

Concerns with Bulldozer Justice

Justice Madan B Lokur, former judge in the Supreme Court said that the Bulldozer Justice is contrary to all canons of law. While the intent might be to fast-track justice or developmental objectives, it raises multiple ethical concerns and implications. 

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

• Violation of Due Process: Actions are often taken without following the due process, undermining the principles of natural justice.
  • Example: The demolition of homes in slums without a proper hearing for the residents.
• Infringement of Fundamental Rights: Hastened decisions can lead to a violation of an individual’s or community’s rights. 
  • The right to shelter is a fundamental right in India. It is recognized as a part of the right to life, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
  • The right to shelter includes the right to adequate housing, which is considered essential for living with dignity. 
  • Example: Evictions of indigenous communities from their ancestral lands without recognizing their rights or giving them proper compensation.
• Lack of Transparency: Decisions are taken without involving or informing the affected parties.
  • Example: Construction of big infrastructure projects without consulting local communities.
• Authoritarian Approach: Such justice may be used as a tool to further political or personal interests.
  • Example: Razing of commercial establishments of those seen as opposed to the ruling political party.
• Loss of Public Trust: A perception that justice is forced rather than served can erode public trust in institutions.
  • Example: The backlash against municipal bodies after forced evictions without adequate notice.
• Target to Minorities: Various data shows that Muslims are disproportionately affected by these demolitions. 
  • Example: Amnesty International reported that 128 properties, mostly owned by Muslims, were demolished in between April and June 2022, affecting 617 people. 

Implications of Bulldozer Justice

Following are the various serious implications of the Bulldozer Justice:

• Social Unrest: The aggrieved parties might resort to protests, leading to social unrest.
  • Example: Protests and demonstrations following sudden demolitions or evictions without prior intimation.
• Economic Impact: Swift actions can lead to a loss of jobs and financial security for many.
  • Example: Street vendors being evicted from a popular market without an alternative source of livelihood.
• Legal Repercussions: Affected parties might resort to legal action against the authorities, causing delays and further complications.
  • Example: Residents moving courts after forced evictions, leading to stay orders and prolonged legal battles.
• Loss of Credibility: The institutions may lose credibility and effectiveness in the long run.
  • Example: Distrust in the city administration due to repeated instances of ‘bulldozer justice’.
• Moral Conflict: Officers may feel conflicted between duty and the ethical implications of their actions.
  • Example: An IAS officer facing the moral quandary of implementing a direct order that might lead to the displacement of many without proper rehabilitation.
    • Recently, a bulldozer demolished parts of the Kotwali police station’s wall in Uttar Pradesh’s Siddharth Nagar district. This incident was part of a drive to reclaim government land for road expansion.
      • The irony of the situation was that the police, who had been assisting in the demolition drive, found their own station among the targets.

Way Forward

Meting out punishment without established guilt and giving the state the authority to determine penalties erodes the fundamental principle of the rule of law. Following measures need to be considered to ensure real justice:

• Upholding Rule of Law: The rule of law acts as a safeguard between an excessively controlling state and the essential security of individuals. 
  • Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India case, 1978 established that procedures must be fair, just and reasonable. 
• Comprehensive and Clear Directives from Judiciary: The recent directive from the Supreme Court signifies the significant action against unlawful bulldozer justice. The guidelines should be clear and comprehensive and must be finalised by considering all stakeholders for its better implementation
• Right to Natural Justice: One can only hope that this marks the beginning of the judiciary’s efforts to uphold fundamental constitutional principles and values in the face of state impunity.
  • In the Municipal Corporation Ludhiana vs Inderjit Singh, 2008, the apex court ruled that no authority can directly proceed with demolitions, even of illegal constructions, without providing notice and an opportunity of being heard to the occupant.
• Strengthen the Legal Framework and Ensuring Due Process: Time has come to implement stricter adherence to legal procedures before any demolition. 
  • Also, the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 emphasised the necessity of due process and ruled that eviction without notice violates the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• Judicial Intervention: Justice Madan B Lokur has highlighted the need for courts to intervene in cases of bulldozer justice to uphold the rule of law. 
  • Example: The Punjab and Haryana High Court intervened to stop demolitions in Nuh, citing lack of due process and potential ethnic targeting.
• Independent Review Mechanisms: Amnesty International has called for investigations into punitive demolitions and accountability for human rights violations. In this context, an independent review body could ensure adherence to legal standards for demolition. 
• People Engagement and Compensation: There is a need to engage with affected families to provide adequate compensation and rehabilitation for those displaced by demolitions. 
  • International human rights standards, such as those outlined by the United Nations, emphasise the right to adequate housing and compensation for forced evictions. 
  • The apex court in various cases like Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1980, Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, 1997 and Puttaswamy vs Union of India, 2017 has laid down the principle that the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights must be interpreted in a manner that will enhance their conformity with international human rights law.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion 

While the intention behind ‘bulldozer justice’ might be to achieve rapid results or maintain order, the ethical concerns and implications it poses cannot be overlooked. 

• Sustainable solutions lie in balancing efficiency with empathy, ensuring that justice is not only swift but also fair. 
• Institutions must ensure that while they uphold the law, they do so with an unwavering commitment to the principles of justice, transparency, and human rights.

DOWNLOAD PDF