The Supreme Court of India voiced its opposition to “bulldozer justice” being meted out in various parts of country in response to several petitions filed before it against it, earlier this week (September 2, 2024). The stand taken by the apex court against “bulldozer justice” may also be viewed as an eye-opener from several angles. The Supreme Court opposed demolition of a house only if it belongs to an accused or a convict in a criminal case. The apex court’s proposal for pan-India guidelines to be followed prior to demolition of homes in the country also bears significance. Certainly, the apex court has taken a very crucial step in this direction. This also draws attention to limited importance being accorded so far by respected political as well as legislative authorities to their being apparently lack of adequate guidelines which need to be upheld prior to pursuing “bulldozer justice.” In this context, it may be more appropriate to describe deliberate use of bulldozers, without being bound by required legal guidelines, to using “bulldozer-law/threat/raj” as viewed so by those commanding their use. Adding the word “justice” to it is equivalent to negating the impression about justice.
Undeniably, the question of viewing use of bulldozers may be also viewed as imposition of their “raj” through their use, by those who view their own “rules and regulations” as above the ones they are supposed to be bound by. These cannot be viewed as ethically and/or legally just from any angle. Lack of effective measures to check use of bulldozers has only contributed to increasing their use as and when desired by those commanding the same over the years.
“Bulldozer-raj/threat” appears to have been put to use for demolition of houses, shops and even religious places for various reasons including communal, construction, socio-political, “religious,” economic and others. It may be noted, at times, attempts have been made to justify the same through “legal” process- such as issuance of certain notices to residents/users of the places being targeted for demolition. The worst sufferers appear to be residents of slums when their homes/shops have been targeted through bulldozers to beautify an area or for other purposes. During phases of communal tension also, the poorer sections seem to have often been worst hit.
In view of some attention having been drawn by apex court to need of certain pan-India guidelines regarding use of bulldozers for demolition of homes, one is prompted to deliberate on a few issues linked with the same. Clearly, it is still not certain by when will such guidelines be outlined and reach the stage of being effectively implemented. If and when these are being actually considered, hopefully greater importance is accorded to viewing illegal use of bulldozers as criminal offence, subject to punishment. Equally significant is the need for emphasis against “demolitions” so that it reaches the stage of being given some importance by concerned leaders/authorities who seem to “glorify” a part of their prowess because of the command they have over its use. This may also be linked with their basking over a strange “victory” linked with their having “succeeding” in targeting usually the already aggrieved sections by demolishing their resources. Hopefully, the guidelines against demolition, likely to be considered, will also pay some attention to who is/are primarily responsible for pressurizing and/or initiating demolition moves for unjustified reasons and illegally. This primarily refers to demolition being indulged in the name of religion, to incite communal violence, as a punishment, for the sake of development and so forth, without due consideration being given to sufferings the same spell for aggrieved parties. It takes minutes to demolish a house or any structure to raise which an entire life-time’s earnings and more may have been used.
As the apex court has specifically laid stress against demolition of homes, hopefully, some justice shall also be delivered to houses of those which have been demolished in the past. Regarding demolition after issuance of notices, it seems, the bench does not support this too strongly. This is suggested by Justice KV Viswanathan laying emphasis on demolition being pursued through a due process after following certain measures. He said, “First issue notice, give time to answer, time to seek legal remedies, and then demolition.” Here, one is tempted to deliberate on whether guidelines will also lay stress on what action would be considered against any demolition which takes place without issuing notice and other measures as stated by Justice Viswanathan. His words may also be considered as tacit reference to guidelines expected to be followed prior to proceeding with demolition.
But, sadly, till guidelines are outlined and probably reach the stage of being implemented, chances of demolition-raj/threat receding to stage of not being pursued seem remote. What does this imply? Simply speaking, demolition-raj/threat is likely to continue. With slaps, verbal abuses, political mockery and other such moves considered as offences, subject to punishment, one is fairly stunned at their apparently not being any adequate legal measures to keep a check on demolition of homes. The bench laid stress that it was not defending illegal structures but at the same time pointed to the need of certain guidelines, which need to be “documented.” The apex court apparently laid stress on misuse of existing local laws, being practiced in different parts of the country, resorting to demolition of residents of accused/alleged criminals as well as “illegal” structures and so forth without issuing notices and/or giving the targeted parties enough time to seek needed legal remedies.
In other words, the issue is simply not that of their not being legal remedies to appeal against demolition, but that of their not being given needed importance. In addition, local laws seem to differ from state to state. In this context, bench apparently chose to lay stress on need of “pan-India” guidelines. The apex court’s stand against demolition of homes and stress on need of pan-India guidelines regarding this may be viewed as it being opposed to what is known as “demolition-justice.” Those practicing demolition-raj/threat, as “appropriate justice” should probably reconsider their stand on this issue. They need to give more importance to apex court’s stand against demolition. After all, when and if apex court voices reservations/opposition on any issue, it also means that judicial hammer has made the needed noise on this or has at least expressed a firm stand regarding it, as has been done on demolition. It is hoped this serves as an eye-opener for those tending to go overboard regarding their demolition-strategies. Will it or not? Or will demolition raj/threat continue?