Bulldozer Justice, Issues and Justifications

Context: In recent years there has been an increasing trend of state governments using bulldozers to demolish properties without due process popularly known as ‘Bulldozer Justice’.

Recent Instances

• Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) demolished an “unauthorised” shed linked to comedian Kunal Kamra’s show after he criticized Maharashtra’s Deputy CM.
• Malvan Municipal Council demolished the house of a family whose 14-year-old child allegedly chanted “anti-India” slogans during a cricket match.
• Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court stayed the demolition of houses of the accused in recent city violence, but the order came too late to prevent key demolitions.

What is Bulldozer Justice (or extra-legal demolitions)?

It refers to the instant justice mechanism that is propagated by the government of various states to punish the alleged rioters, protestors or perpetrator of serious crimes by razing down their houses, stalls or any construction using JCB machine.

Other Instances of Bulldozer Justice

Source: Indian Express

Justifications for Bulldozer Justice

• Legal Justification: State government officials assert demolition is justified under municipal laws either on account of action against encroachment or under the pretext of unauthorised construction.
  • Eg.,the  U.P. Municipal Corporation Act and the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act were used to carry out the demolition.
• Maintaining Public Order and Deterrence: Put the fear of law in the minds of hardened criminals.
• Restoring Order: State governments argue that demolishing illegal properties of those accused in communal conflicts helps restore order and ease tensions during violence. For example, the Haryana government’s response to the Nuh violence.
• Clear Intent: The Solicitor General of India said that demolitions in states like Madhya Pradesh were not aimed at any specific minority groups and affected properties owned by people from different communities as the intent was to clear encroachment.
• Way to free encroached public land:
  • Eg., In Uttar Pradesh bulldozer drive helped the revenue department free up around 67,000 acres from the land mafia and lands so acquired were used to promote sports on a priority basis.

Issues with Bulldozer Justice

• Against Rule of Law, Due Process of Law– bulldozing alleged illegal properties of crime accused without serving notice is a violation of the rule of law and goes against the spirit of the rule of law (Articles 14) and the due process of law upheld by Supreme court in Maneka Gandhi Case under Article 21. This is against the principle of Natural Justice.
• Against Separation of Power guilt of the accused must be proved before a court of law and the punishment should be given by the judiciary, not by executive action as it amounts to collective extra-judicial punishment

Judiciary’s Observation on Bulldozer Justice

• In 2024 the Indore Bench of the MP High Court stated, “It has become fashionable for civic authorities to demolish homes without following proper procedure.”
• The Punjab and Haryana High Court stepped in to halt demolitions in Nuh citing concerns over the lack of due process and the possibility of ethnic targeting.
• A three-judge Supreme Court bench stated:
  • a person’s alleged involvement in a crime could not be the reason to demolish property adding that such action may be seen as “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”
  • The court also stated that transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally-constructed residence.
  • Alleged involvement in a crime does not justify the demolition of a property, as the alleged crime must be proven through due legal process in a court of law.

• Antithetical to Criminal Justice System: Governments resorting to such actions reflect a lack of faith in the country’s judiciary and the Constitution giving citizens a wrong signal.
• Targeting Specific Groups: It is also criticised that demolition justice targets people on the basis of their caste/community.
• Double Punishment for the same crime: Article 20(2) states that no person can be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once and hence punishing the guilty again through demolition goes against the spirit of the fundamental right that protects against double jeopardy.
• Right to Property a constitutional right: Article 300A of the Constitution of India states that no one can be deprived of their property without the authority of law.

Supreme Court on Bulldozer Justice: Concerns

• The Supreme Court should consider whether the claim that only encroachments are being demolished is sufficient to excuse the violations of due process and rule of law seen in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Delhi.
• In many cases, backdated eviction notices are used to justify demolitions, and the celebratory behaviour of officials in some cases exposes the political and communal motives behind these actions.
• The ruling parties in these states are believed to gain political mileage by portraying the demolitions as tough measures against anti-social elements, even though they are often thinly veiled communal actions presented as anti-encroachment drives.

Supreme Court Suggestions on Demolitions

• Local laws permit the removal of encroachments and unauthorised constructions, but the Supreme Court has stated its intention to establish uniform guidelines for these actions across India.
• The guidelines would focus on how unauthorised structures should be identified, ensuring that proper notices are issued and a fair hearing is given before any demolition action.
• The Court must be cautious that the guidelines do not obscure the correlation between communal violence and the subsequent demolitions.
• Digitalizing eviction notices is proposed as a solution to prevent backdated notices, but this may be difficult to implement universally across the country.

Way Forward

• Pre-Demolition Surveys and Advance Notice– The Supreme Court has directed that a survey must be conducted before any demolitions take place and that authorities must adhere to basic procedural protocols, including providing sufficient advance notice.
• National Guidelines on Demolition Procedures should be integrated into local Municipal laws and regulations ensuring that correct procedures are adhered to at every stage of the demolition process—before, during and after the demolition.
• Stricter Legal Adherence before demolitions is essential as highlighted by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Olga Tellis case.
• Burden of Proof for demolition should be put on the authorities to better protect human right to Shelter which has also been recognised by the Supreme Court as fundamental right under Article 21 in Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh case.
• Independent Oversight Mechanisms: A committee made up of judges and members of civil society should be formed to check if proposed demolitions are legal.
• Reformation should be the aim of Punishment: In a democratic society justice should not be about retribution and punitive measures should be aimed at reforming the guilty.

Sharing is caring!