The Supreme Court of India gave a recent judgement against “bulldozer justice”, condemning the demolition of properties without due process.

Bulldozer Justice

• Meaning: The term “bulldozer justice” has gained attention in India, where state governments or municipal authorities use bulldozers to demolish homes, often of individuals accused of being involved in crimes (especially in the context of communal riots, protests, or violent incidents).
• Justification Given: The justification given by the government is typically that the structures are “illegal encroachments” or “unauthorised constructions,” and thus, they must be demolished. 
  • Supporters of this approach argue that it serves as a deterrent — thus aiding in decreasing such crimes
• No Legal Procedures are Followed: These demolitions allegedly target specific communities — particularly minorities and depressed classes — without adequate legal procedures, such as prior notice or the opportunity to contest the action in court.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

Supreme Court Verdict

• Two Judge Bench: The Supreme Court bench comprising justices K V Vishwanathan and B R Gavai gave a detailed judgement including the guidelines in respect to ‘Bulldozer Justice’.
• Guidelines Given: Using its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court has established guidelines for property demolition.
  • These guidelines include giving a 15 days notice to the property owner and allowing time for appeals. 
  • The authority will hold meetings where people can present their cases, and they will take notes during these meetings before making a final decision.
  • An inspection must be conducted, and the report should be signed in the presence of a witness.
  • Notice must be provided digitally and uploaded to the designated website within a three-month timeframe. 
  • The DM or collector is to receive official notification via email regarding these demolitions.
  • During the demolition process, it is essential to inform residents about the specific areas of the property being affected and the reasons for the authorities’ decision in the final order.
  • The authorities must provide a clear explanation of why the extreme measure of demolition is deemed the only viable solution.
  • The Court also stated that officials who do not follow these orders will be held personally responsible for restoring the demolished property at their own expense.
• Exceptions: The bench stated that its directions do not apply to unauthorised structures in public places like roads, streets, footpaths, near railway lines, or along rivers and water bodies. 
  • This also applies to cases where a court has ordered demolition.

Bulldozer Justice Violates Many Principles 

• Against Natural Justice: The apex court reiterated that this kind of demolition goes against the basic principle of natural justice.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books From PW Store

• Against Fundamental Rights: The Court has stated that justice cannot be achieved through force, and that punishing someone without due process violates fundamental rights. 
• Violation of Rule of Law: Punishment based solely on accusations, without proof of guilt, violates the rule of law.
• Against Separation of Powers: Such demolitions also undermine the principle of Separation of Powers, as it is the role of the police to apprehend the accused, while the judiciary is responsible for determining guilt or innocence.

• Against the Idea of Presumption of Innocence: This also goes against the concept of the presumption of innocence means individuals should not be punished without trial and a person is innocent until proven guilty.
• Illegality of Collective Punishment: Collective punishment refers to the unjust practice of penalising entire communities for the actions of a few individuals. 
  • Bulldozing the home of an accused person not only impacts the individual but also adversely affects their family.
• Violates Right to Shelter: When a house is demolished, the family’s right to shelter, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fundamental right, is also violated.

SC Past Judgments and Lack of Change

• Hate Speech and Cow Vigilantism: The Supreme Court has, in recent years, spoken out against hate speech and murders by semi-vigilante groups acting in the name of cow protection.
• No Change: However, it seems this warning has had little effect, as these issues persist with little legal or political action.

Way Forward

• Raising Awareness: It is essential that people at the grassroots level are made aware of their legal rights and the constitutional protections they are entitled to.
• Awareness Among Local Authorities: At the same time, local authorities must be made fully aware of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on property demolitions and other forms of collective punishment.
• Political Will: As the main player, the Government has a crucial role in making sure that the Supreme Court’s guidelines are implemented effectively and that bulldozer justice is not allowed to become a tool of arbitrary punishment.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Classes

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s verdict against bulldozer justice is important but is not enough. Only through political accountability, will and a shift in local governance can true justice be ensured.

DOWNLOAD PDF