By Sujit Bhar
In a recent conversation with a group of lawyers at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai recalled a moment of immense personal satisfaction: the delivery of what has come to be popularly known as the “bulldozer judgment”. Handed down in 2023, this judgment condemned the practice of arbitrary demolitions by state governments—actions that had become increasingly common, particularly in Uttar Pradesh under the Yogi Adityanath government.
The bulldozer, in recent years, has become both a political metaphor and a blunt instrument of state action. Properties of alleged criminals, protesters, and supposed encroachers have been razed overnight, without due process, in a bid to demonstrate governmental “toughness” on law and order. But the practice undermines one of the most fundamental principles of a constitutional democracy: that no person can be deprived of property, liberty, or dignity without the sanction of law.
Justice Gavai’s bench drew a firm line against such arbitrary demolitions, emphasizing that even if a person is accused of crime or encroachment, demolishing their home requires prior judicial authorization. In short, the state cannot be both accuser and executor; the judiciary must act as the balancing authority.
While the judgment was about property, its implications go much further. It is a reminder that India’s constitutional system is built on checks and balances, and that excessive government action—whether through bulldozers, bans, or surveillance—must be subject to judicial oversight. The question that follows is: can India build a stronger framework of continuous checks and balances to prevent the erosion of rights before it is too late?
THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
To understand the weight of the bulldozer judgment, one must recall the trajectory of the right to property in India. At independence, property was enshrined as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. But repeated conflicts between state-led land reforms and private ownership led to constitutional amendments diluting these protections. Ultimately, the 44th Amendment (1978) removed property from the list of Fundamental Rights and introduced Article 300A, which states: “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Though no longer a fundamental right, property remains a constitutional right, enforceable in courts. In practice, this means governments cannot take away property arbitrarily; they need a clear legal process, backed by judicial review.
The bulldozer actions in Uttar Pradesh and other states violated this principle. Demolishing homes as instant punishment for alleged criminality effectively bypassed courts and reduced Article 300A to a dead letter. By condemning such demolitions, Justice Gavai’s bench not only restored dignity to the constitutional right to property, but also reminded the executive that it cannot unilaterally override due process.
THE BULLDOZER LAW
The bulldozer is not just a machine; it is a symbol of executive overreach. Using state machinery to punish individuals outside the judicial process sets a dangerous precedent: today, it may be criminals or protesters, but tomorrow it could be anyone out of step with the establishment.
This is not limited to property rights. Across multiple domains, the state has shown a tendency to bypass procedure in the name of efficiency, deterrence, or nationalism. Justice Gavai’s judgment, therefore, offers a lens to examine broader patterns of rights violations in India:
- Freedom of expression and dissent: India has witnessed frequent clampdowns on dissent—through sedition laws, internet shutdowns, and arrests under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), for instance, were met with arbitrary arrests, police violence, and even recovery notices for property damage. Much like the bulldozer demolitions, these actions bypassed the judicial process and sought to impose instant punishment.
- Privacy and surveillance: The Pegasus spyware revelations showed how state surveillance has targeted journalists, activists, and Opposition politicians. Despite the Supreme Court’s landmark recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in Justice KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), the lack of a comprehensive data protection framework has enabled unchecked surveillance. Arbitrary demolitions and arbitrary snooping share a common root: the executive claiming powers beyond constitutional limits.
- Citizenship and identity: The National Register of Citizens (NRC) process in Assam left millions in limbo, many of them poor and marginalized, with their citizenship questioned without adequate procedural safeguards. For those excluded, property, livelihood, and even personal liberty were jeopardized—once again highlighting how the absence of continuous checks allows the erosion of rights.
- Custodial deaths and police violence: From custodial deaths to extrajudicial encounters, the state’s use of excessive force remains a chronic issue. The bulldozer may flatten homes; police excesses flatten lives. Both reflect an underlying assumption that the executive can operate above or outside judicial scrutiny.
FRAGILE HUMAN RIGHTS
That brings us to human rights and the fragility of it in this country. The Indian Constitution is one of the most elaborate in the world, with explicit guarantees of liberty, equality, and due process. Yet, in practice, rights often depend on the willingness of courts to intervene. Several factors explain this fragility:
1. Overpowering executive: With the rise of strong-majority governments, executive power often overshadows legislative debate and judicial caution.
2. Slow judicial process: Courts move slowly, and governments exploit this by implementing actions first, leaving citizens to fight prolonged battles for relief.
3. Public perception of “toughness”: Measures like bulldozer demolitions enjoy populist support, as they project decisiveness, even if they bypass law.
4. Weak institutional checks: Oversight bodies like human rights commissions, tribunals, and ombudsmen are often toothless, underfunded, or politically compromised.
JUSTICE GAVAI’S JUDGMENT AS A TEMPLATE
The bulldozer judgment is not just about stopping demolitions—it is a reminder that due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of populism or expediency. It sets a template for judicial intervention in other areas where rights are under threat:
- In protest-related cases, courts can insist on prior judicial authorization before freezing assets, imposing bans, or recovering damages.
- In surveillance matters, courts can establish independent oversight mechanisms to approve and review state snooping.
- In citizenship disputes, judicial safeguards must ensure that no person is rendered stateless without exhaustive appeals and representation.
- In police encounters, automatic judicial inquiries can prevent the normalization of extrajudicial killings.
The bulldozer judgment raises an important question: can India create a system of continuous checks and balances that prevents excessive government action at the very outset, instead of relying only on case-by-case judicial intervention? Some possibilities include:
- Pre-authorization mechanisms: Just as search warrants require prior judicial approval, demolitions, surveillance orders, or detention under preventive laws should require mandatory pre-authorization by a judicial or quasi-judicial body.
- Independent oversight bodies: Strengthening institutions like the National Human Rights Commission and state commissions with binding powers can ensure violations are flagged in real time.
- Parliamentary committees with teeth: Reviving the practice of strong parliamentary committees, with Opposition participation and real investigative powers, can check executive excess before it reaches the courts.
- Transparency and public scrutiny: Mandatory publication of government orders relating to demolitions, surveillance, and detentions would allow media and civil society to scrutinize actions and hold the state accountable.
- Speedy judicial redressal: Fast-track benches for cases involving civil liberties can ensure that rights are not lost in the delays of litigation. The bulldozer judgment itself shows that timely judicial intervention can prevent irreversible harm.
Justice Gavai’s bulldozer judgment stands out because it reaffirmed a basic truth: the Constitution protects citizens from the arbitrary might of the state. In a climate where governance increasingly embraces spectacle over substance, where punishment is televised before trial, such reminders are critical.
The larger message of the judgment is that rights—whether property, liberty, or dignity—are not negotiable favours from the state, but enforceable guarantees under the Constitution. The bulldozer, in this sense, and symbolically, is only the beginning. The same principles must apply to surveillance, censorship, citizenship, and policing.
If India is to preserve its democratic character, it must embed continuous checks and balances into its governance architecture. Courts alone cannot bear this burden; legislatures, commissions, media, and citizens must all play their part. Otherwise, rights will remain fragile, at the mercy of political will and popular mood.
The bulldozer judgment, then, is more than a case about demolitions. It is a call to reclaim the idea of India as a constitutional democracy where the rule of law prevails over the rule by law, and where no government can unilaterally flatten the lives and aspirations of its citizens.