Bulldozer Justice: SC’s Tough Talk and the Rise of Demolitions as Instant Punishment
In a significant move on Monday, the Supreme Court of India addressed the controversial practice of “bulldozer justice,” where properties of accused individuals are demolished without due process. The Court proposed laying down guidelines to ensure that demolitions are carried out in accordance with the law. “Can anybody’s house be demolished only because they are an accused?” the Court questioned, adding, “Even if one is a convict, demolitions cannot be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.” The Court’s stance is a response to growing concerns over the misuse of state power under the guise of law enforcement.
The concept of “bulldozer justice” gained prominence under Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who first employed this method in 2017. This practice involves the demolition of properties belonging to individuals accused of criminal activities, often without following the legal protocols required for such actions. What began as a controversial measure in Uttar Pradesh has since spread to other states, raising questions about the erosion of legal rights and due process.
Uttar Pradesh: The Birthplace of Bulldozer Justice
Yogi Adityanath, often referred to as “Bulldozer Baba,” introduced this form of instant justice shortly after taking office in 2017. His administration sought to differentiate itself from the previous Samajwadi Party government, which the BJP criticized as being “lawless.” To underscore its commitment to law and order, Adityanath’s government registered cases against approximately 15,000 individuals under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act. Alongside these legal actions, the state began demolishing properties deemed to have been “illegally constructed” by the accused.
The rationale provided by the Uttar Pradesh government for these demolitions was that they targeted illegal structures, not lawful residences, and that due notice was given to the property owners. However, critics argue that this explanation is often a pretext to bypass legal procedures and exert pressure on those accused, particularly in cases where they are evading arrest. The demolitions serve as a powerful tool for the state to send a message of zero tolerance, but they also raise serious concerns about the potential for abuse.
The Spread of Bulldozer Justice
The success of this approach in Uttar Pradesh, at least in terms of its immediate impact, led to its adoption in other BJP-ruled states. Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Haryana, among others, have followed suit, using bulldozers as a symbol of swift justice. Even Congress-ruled states like Rajasthan have occasionally resorted to similar tactics, blurring the lines between political ideologies when it comes to law enforcement strategies.
In Madhya Pradesh, for example, the state government has demolished properties belonging to individuals accused of crimes ranging from rioting to encroachment. Like Uttar Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh government claims that only illegal constructions are targeted, and due process is followed. However, the speed and timing of these demolitions often coincide with high-profile cases, leading to accusations that the state is using its power to intimidate or punish individuals outside the bounds of established legal procedures.
Legal and Human Rights Concerns
The Supreme Court’s decision to intervene and propose guidelines comes amid growing concerns about the legal and human rights implications of bulldozer justice. Critics argue that the practice undermines the rule of law by allowing the state to act as judge, jury, and executioner. They also point out that the demolitions disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized, who are less likely to have the resources to fight back through legal channels.
Human rights organizations have also raised alarm over the potential for these demolitions to be used as a tool of political or communal retribution. In several cases, the targets of bulldozer justice have been individuals from minority communities, leading to accusations that the practice is being selectively applied.
The Way Forward
As the Supreme Court prepares to lay down guidelines for the use of demolitions as a law enforcement tool, it faces the challenge of balancing the state’s need to maintain law and order with the protection of individual rights. The Court’s intervention could set a precedent for how such actions are handled across the country, potentially curbing the excesses of bulldozer justice.
The outcome of this legal battle will have far-reaching implications, not only for those directly affected by these demolitions but also for the broader principles of justice and fairness in India. Whether the Court’s guidelines will rein in the practice or merely formalize it within a legal framework remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the era of bulldozer justice has sparked a critical debate about the limits of state power and the importance of upholding the rule of law.
