High Time Supreme Court Acts To Stop 'Bulldozer Justice'

'Bulldozer justice' is a euphemism for instant retributive action against accused persons whereby their homes are demolished with much fanfare. In sensational cases where there is a lot of public outcry, authorities often resort to this 'short-cut' method to assuage public sentiments. 

The trend was initiated by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who is 2017 reportedly stated, “My government will bulldoze houses of anyone even thinking of perpetuating crime against women and weaker sections of the society.”

In 2020, the demolition actions against the building of gangster Vikas Dubey and MLA Mukhtar Ansari gained a lot of public attention. The same year, the Mumbai corporation demolished parts of a building of Kangana Ranaut soon after she made certain critical comments against the Maharashtra Government. These actions were celebrated by certain sections, making more and more politicians across the States to adopt this populist extrajudicial tool as a substitute for proper investigation and fair trial. So much so, after the victory of Yogi Adityanath in the 2022 Assembly elections, his supporters celebrated with rallies parading bulldozers. Terms like "bulldozer baba", "bulldozer mama" etc., came to be associated with the Chief Ministers of UP and MP, apparently indicative of their capacity for bold and swift actions.

For anyone who believes in the Constitution, it is not difficult to understand that "bulldozer justice" is a plain affront to the rule of law. Even before the investigation is completed in accordance with law and the accused is pronounced guilty by a court of law, their homes are demolished as a penal action. Except for the word of the police, there is no other means to ascertain if the persons named as the accused are the real perpetrators of the crime. In a country where there are umpteen cases of investigating agencies framing innocent persons, no punitive action can be taken merely on their version, before its credibility is established beyond reasonable doubt through a fair trial process. Apart from the negation of the right to fair trial, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the violation of the principles of natural justice, bulldozer justice is unacceptable because of the disproportionate nature of the punishment. When the residence of an accused person is demolished, the family of that individual also suffers. Punishing an entire family for the alleged crime of a peson is a barbaric response which can have no place in a civilised society governed by the rule of law.

The absurdity and abject inhumanness of bulldozer justice can be demonstrated through the case of 18-year old Muslim Teenager, Adnan Mansuri, whose home was demolished in MP's Ujjain last year on an allegation of spitting during a Mahakal procession. After spending over 150 days in jail, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted him bail in January this year after the complainants and the witnesses disowned the case.

Reports show that mostly Muslims and marginalised groups have borne the brunt of these actions. After riots in Delhi's Jahangirpuri (2022),  MP's Khargone (2022),  UP's Prayagraj (2022), Haryana's Nuh (2023) houses of several Muslims were targeted. According to an Amnesty International report published in February this year, Muslims were targeted in 128 demolitions that affected 617 people. In the report, Agnes Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, said: “The unlawful demolition of Muslim properties by the Indian authorities, peddled as 'bulldozer justice', is cruel and appalling. Such displacement and dispossession are deeply unjust, unlawful, and discriminatory.”

Last year, the Punjab and Haryana made a strong intervention to stop the demolition actions in Nuh following communal riots. In a strongly worded order, the Court observed that the homes of a "particular community" were demolished without following any due process of law and went to the extent of saying that it amounted to "an exercise of ethnic cleansing is being conducted by the State."

Earlier this year, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while ordering compensation to a family whose building was illegally demolished, observed, "it has become fashionable now for local administration and local bodies to demolish any house by drawing up proceedings without complying with the Principal of Natural Justice and publish it in the newspaper." Even if there are some violations of building laws, the Court reminded that demolition should be the last resort to be adopted after giving the owner an opportunity to regularise the construction.

It is deepy concerning that the Supreme Court is yet to make a strong denouncement of this extrajudicial and unconstitutional method. In 2022, in the wake of the Jahangirpuri and Khargone demolitions, several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against using demolitions as a punitive measure. Although the Court passed an interim order to halt the Janangirpuri demolitions, in the subsequent hearings, the Court adopted a stand that it cannot pass a general omnibus order to stop the demolition of the houses of accused persons and that violations have to be dealt with in individual cases. Though the Court's approach cannot be faulted from a technical point of view, it however amounts to taking a convenient stand which fails to see the ground realities.

There is a clear pattern that is difficult to ignore: soon after a horrific crime or communal riot, a politician or minister publicly announces that the homes of the accused will be bulldozed. Authorities, almost on cue, promptly demolish the buildings of the purported accused. Given that these actions often take place within a day or two, it is implausible that the statutory process—serving a show-cause notice, considering the noticee's response, passing a reasoned demolition order, and serving it on the party—could be completed within this timeframe. In most states, local body laws specify a notice period of one to two weeks before demolition. These demolitions are widely publicized, often executed in the presence of media cameras, and celebrated by politicians as "justice."

These are not isolated instances of overzealous officials overstepping their authority, but a deliberate and well-orchestrated campaign carried out with the political executive's approval. Accused persons must indeed be punished for their crimes, but only after their guilt has been established through a fair trial in a court of law. Executive authorities cannot be allowed to act as judge, jury, and executioner, wreaking havoc on people's lives under the guise of enforcing criminal law.

The pattern of bulldozer justice has now grown into a serious threat to the rule of law and the justice system. If this practice continues unchecked, it will erode public confidence in the judiciary and diminish the relevance of the court system itself.

The author is the Managing Editor of LiveLaw. He can be reached at manu@livelaw.in