‘HIGH TIME SUPREME COURT ACTS TO STOP ‘BULLDOZER JUSTICE’

THE CONTEXT: The practice of “bulldozer justice” in India, where authorities demolish properties of accused individuals without due process, poses a significant threat to the rule of law and human rights. This extrajudicial approach has sparked widespread debate over its legality, discrimination, and impact on minority communities.

THE ISSUES:

• Violation of Rule of Law and Due Process: Bulldozer justice often bypasses legal procedures, with demolitions carried out without proper notices or hearings. For instance, in Jahangirpuri, Delhi, demolitions proceeded despite a Supreme Court stay order, illustrating the disregard for due process. In many instances, affected individuals were not given prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, which violates the principles of natural justice.
• Disproportionate Punishment: The demolition of homes as punishment affects entire families, not just the accused. For example, in Madhya Pradesh, a widow named Hasina Bi recounted how her home was demolished without notice, leaving her family homeless. This collective punishment is seen as disproportionate and unjust, impacting innocent family members.
• Targeting of Minority Communities: Data shows that Muslims are disproportionately affected by these demolitions. Amnesty International reported that 128 properties, mostly owned by Muslims, were demolished in a short span between April and June 2022, affecting 617 people. These actions are often linked to communal violence or protests, with Muslim properties being targeted under the guise of removing illegal encroachments.
• Political and Extrajudicial Nature: Bulldozer justice has been politically charged, with leaders like Uttar Pradesh’s Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath using it as a symbol of swift justice. This extrajudicial approach is criticized as a populist tool for political gain. The use of bulldozers has been celebrated in political rallies, further highlighting its political nature.
• Lack of Judicial Intervention: Despite constitutional violations, judicial intervention has been limited. While the Supreme Court issued a stay on some demolitions, it has not taken a strong stance against the practice. This lack of decisive judicial action undermines the judiciary’s role as a protector of rights.
• Human Rights Concerns: The demolitions raise significant human rights issues, including forced evictions without resettlement or compensation. Amnesty International has condemned these actions as unlawful and discriminatory, particularly against Muslims. The use of JCB bulldozers in these demolitions has been criticized internationally, with calls for the company to address its role in these human rights violations.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• Strengthening Legal Framework and Ensuring Due Process: Implement stricter adherence to legal procedures before any demolition, including issuing notices and providing an opportunity for the accused to be heard. The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation emphasized the necessity of due process, ruling that eviction without notice violates the right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle should be strictly enforced in all demolition cases. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act requires notices before demolitions, a procedure often ignored in recent cases.
• Judicial Oversight and Accountability: Establish judicial oversight for demolitions to ensure they are not used as extrajudicial punishment. Justice Lokur has highlighted the need for courts to intervene in cases of bulldozer justice to uphold the rule of law. The Supreme Court’s interim orders to halt demolitions in Jahangirpuri demonstrate the potential for judicial intervention to prevent misuse. The Punjab and Haryana High Court intervened to stop demolitions in Nuh, citing lack of due process and potential ethnic targeting.
• Independent Review Mechanisms: Create independent review bodies to assess the legality and necessity of proposed demolitions. Amnesty International has called for investigations into punitive demolitions and accountability for human rights violations. Such bodies could ensure demolitions are not politically motivated and adhere to legal standards. The Madhya Pradesh High Court awarded compensation for illegal demolitions, setting a precedent for accountability.
• Policy Reforms and Clear Guidelines: Develop clear guidelines for demolitions, ensuring they are used only as a last resort and in compliance with human rights standards. The Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case established that procedures must be fair, just, and reasonable. This principle should guide policy reforms to prevent arbitrary demolitions. The Allahabad High Court’s directives for demolition procedures emphasize the need for clear, fair guidelines.
• Community Engagement and Compensation: Engage with affected communities to provide adequate compensation and rehabilitation for those displaced by demolitions. International human rights standards, such as those outlined by the United Nations, emphasize the right to adequate housing and compensation for forced evictions. Implementing these standards can mitigate the impact on affected individuals.

THE CONCLUSION:

Addressing the issues of bulldozer justice requires urgent legal reforms, judicial oversight, and adherence to human rights standards. Implementing these solutions can restore public confidence in the justice system and uphold the principles of fairness and equality.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:

Q.1 The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society. Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. 2023

Q.2 Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. 2021

Q.3 Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment. 2023

Q.4 Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain 2019

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q.1 Analyze the role of the judiciary in addressing extrajudicial punishment through bulldozer justice in India.

SOURCE:

https://www.livelaw.in/articles/high-time-supreme-court-acts-to-stop-bulldozer-justice-267708