The Supreme Court on November 13 came down heavily on the controversial practice of “bulldozer justice” that has emerged as a troubling symbol of executive overreach in India. States ruled by the ruling party portrayed it as a crackdown on illegal constructions or a punitive measure against alleged offenders of communal violence. However, it was undeniable that the use of bulldozers to demolish homes and properties disproportionately targeted marginalized communities, particularly Muslims.
In fact, some politicians who gained notoriety for these demolitions were glorified and showered with sobriquets like “bulldozer baba” by the media. This extrajudicial method bypassed the principles of due process and fairness enshrined in the Indian Constitution, raising serious questions about the erosion of the rule of law. Hence, the apex court’s recent condemnation of bulldozer “injustice” is a welcome relief to the victims of this blatant and diabolical misuse of state power and is a strong push back to the governments who weaponised their administrative powers for political gains and communal bias.
In a way, the Supreme Court has dealt a body blow to those who were trying to weaken our democratic polity by imposing a “bulldozer raj” over the rule of law and our cherished constitutional values.
Borrowed from Israel
The troubling parallels between bulldozer “injustice” in India and Israel’s long-standing policies in the occupied Palestinian territories are too stark to be overlooked. Israel has resorted to demolishing Palestinian homes as a means of collective punishment, citing security concerns or alleged violations of construction regulations.
These demolitions are widely condemned by international organisations as violations of human rights and international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit collective punishment in occupied territories. Under the pretence of maintaining security or enforcing zoning laws, these actions have systematically displaced Palestinian families, altered the region’s demographic makeup, and entrenched socio-political divides.
Background of the Case
The SC guidelines were issued on a case that saw a series of pleas challenging the so-called ‘bulldozer justice’ that gained traction in recent years, particularly in BJP-ruled states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, as well as in Congress-ruled Rajasthan in 2022. The recent ruling was prompted by incidents earlier this year in Udaipur, Rajasthan, and Ratlam, Madhya Pradesh.
In Ratlam, a family’s ancestral home was razed after the owner’s son was arrested in June for allegedly slaughtering a cow. In Udaipur, the municipal corporation demolished a tenant’s home in August, citing alleged “encroachment” on forest land. This demolition occurred soon after the tenant’s 15-year-old son was arrested for stabbing a classmate from another community, an incident that escalated communal tensions in the city.
Lawyers argued that the demolition and the accusations against the tenant’s son were interconnected. These pleas were tagged with other cases concerning demolition drives across states, including one filed by the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind in April 2022 during a demolition drive following communal violence in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri.
The Supreme Court’s Guidelines
A key aspect of the guidelines by the apex court is providing the accused and their families sufficient notice and time to handle their affairs. The first requirement is that a minimum of 15 days’ prior notice must be given before any demolition is carried out. From the date the owner or occupier receives the notice, local authorities must inform the District Magistrate or Collector via email to prevent any allegations of backdating, with an auto-reply acknowledgment ensuring transparency.
Once the hearing is conducted, with proper minutes recorded, the final order must detail the arguments presented by the owner or occupier, the reasons provided by the authorities for proceeding with the demolition, and whether the entire structure or only a part will be removed. The authorities must also justify why demolition is the only available recourse.
If the final order mandates demolition, the implementation must be delayed for 15 days, giving the property owner or occupier the opportunity to either remove the structure themselves or challenge the decision in court. Should the final order remain uncontested or upheld after this period, demolition may proceed.
However, authorities are required to document the process meticulously, including video recording the demolition and preparing both pre-demolition and post-demolition inspection reports detailing the personnel involved.
The Reasoning
The Supreme Court underscored the separation of powers, emphasising that the judiciary alone holds the authority to adjudicate guilt and impose penalties. It deemed it impermissible for the executive to punish an accused by demolishing their property, as such actions would usurp judicial functions. High-handed demolition orders targeting accused individuals without due process were deemed unacceptable.
Finally, the court affirmed the constitutional right to shelter under Article 21, which includes the right to life with dignity. It highlighted that demolishing a home disproportionately affects other innocent residents, making such actions unconstitutional. The SC further addressed cases involving illegal constructions, noting that selective targeting of properties often indicates ulterior motives aimed at penalising individuals rather than addressing genuine violations of municipal laws.
Judgment should have cascading effect
The court also stressed public trust and transparency, holding officials accountable for their actions and inactions. Under the heading “Malfeasance of erring officers and accountability,” the SC said, “(I) If the proposed action of demolition was in bad faith and actuated by malice, disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against the erring officers under their applicable service rules; (and) (II) In case any demolition is carried out in violation of the guidelines, the erring officers and the head of the department that has carried out the demolition shall be personally liable.
In addition, proceedings for contempt against the erring officers may be initiated. The compensation to be paid to the owner shall also be recoverable from the salary of the erring officers including the head of the department.”
It is a well-known fact that thousands of Muslim youth have been put behind bars under draconian laws on false charges of terrorism and conspiring to wage war against the state. The charges against them are fabricated and filed by unscrupulous police officers to please their political masters. These officers know that they enjoy immunity under Section 197 of CrPC.
The SC judgment and guidelines on punishing erring officers for carrying out demolitions with malafide intentions should be extended to the police officers who arrest Muslim youth on false charges. While 99% of such “terror” cases end in late acquittal, there is no retribution for those who ruined the lives of these Muslim youth and their families who endured decades of suffering. We know “where law ends, tyranny begins”. May this SC judgment on bulldozer justice spark the end of tyranny.