On ‘bulldozer justice’ Supreme Court sends a message. Will it be heard?

The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice… reminds one of a lawless state of affairs.” The Supreme Court’s indictment of governments using the excuse of “illegal encroachment” to take punitive action against those merely accused of crimes is unequivocal. In essence, the Court has confirmed that justice cannot be found at the end of a bulldozer, that punishment without due process violates fundamental rights. The bench comprising justices K V Vishwanathan and B R Gavai has rightly pointed out how the demolition of the homes and properties of those accused of crimes cannot be reconciled with the basic principles of India’s Constitution, including the rule of law, separation of powers, the presumption of innocence and the illegality of collective punishment. Using its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court has laid down guidelines for the demolition of properties, including providing a personal notice and time for appeal. It also ruled that “officials found to be in violation of the orders of this Court, will be held responsible for restitution of the demolished property at his/their personal cost”.

The apex court’s reiteration and defence of the basic principles of natural justice is welcome and necessary. However, for those who have lost their homes and businesses already, it is already too late. The Court has said its directions will not be applicable, “if there is any unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line…”. Beginning with the Uttar Pradesh government, then in other BJP-ruled states such as Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand and even in then Congress-ruled Rajasthan, the bulldozer has become a symbol of summary “justice”. More often than not, the houses and properties destroyed have belonged to people from the minority community and those at the margins. For the Court’s eloquent defence of rights and legal principles to have substance it must percolate to every judicial officer in the country. More importantly, it is up against a political logic that is becoming increasingly widespread. The Court has, in recent years, also spoken against hate speech and murders by semi-vigilante groups in the name of cow protection. On the former, it had, in 20023, directed all states and UTs to take suo motu action and warned that not adhering to its guidelines would be considered contempt of court. That warning seems not to have had the desired effect. On cow vigilantism, too, it is debatable whether the message has been heeded.

Those who have been at the receiving end of the bulldozer’s excesses cannot knock, in most instances, at the doors of the apex court. For them, it is the local councillor and the local thana that is the visible arm of the state, that so often strong-arms them. It is here that a change in attitude must occur. Whatever their ideological inclination, elected governments must not wear the bulldozer’s excesses as a badge of honour. The SC’s verdict must resonate outside the portals of the judiciary, amongst politicians and administrators who represent the face of the state to common people.