By Dr Rajeshwar Singh
“Bulldozer Justice,” a term that has recently gained traction, pejoratively refers to the State’s rapid demolition of illegal structures linked with criminal activities. This has ignited a heated debate.
Critics argue that targeting properties of those accused of serious crimes represents a troubling shift from traditional justice principles. They allege that local authorities exploit this tactic to sidestep due process, disproportionately affecting marginalised groups, minorities, and political dissenters in the name of law enforcement. However, this criticism misses the mark. It fails to acknowledge the pressing need for swift action in a justice system bogged down by inefficiency and delays, where public confidence in conventional legal processes is eroding.
A Necessary Response to Criminal Impunity
The notorious cases of Vikas Dubey and Mukhtar Ansari serve as powerful illustrations of the State’s decisive response to those who blatantly flout the law and jeopardise public safety. Dubey, who was the mastermind behind a ruthless ambush on police officers, and Ansari, who was a feared criminal with over 65 criminal cases to his name – 18 for murder and 10 for attempted murder – embody the unchecked criminality that the so-called “Bulldozer Justice” aims to eradicate.
Ansari’s reign of terror extended even from behind the bars, with additional cases of criminal conspiracy and extortion filed against him while in prison. His influence was so pervasive that no jailer dared to take charge of Banda Jail for over a year. The state’s actions against such figures are not reactionary; they are necessary to restore law and order, reflecting a balanced approach where legal safeguards are upheld without compromising public security.
Critics who dismiss bulldozer actions as mere revenge or political vendetta overlook the essential goal of maintaining public safety and order. Consider the situation in Delhi, where miscreants illegally encroached upon Centrally-protected monuments like Nizamuddin-ki–Baoli and Barakhamba Tomb. They constructed unauthorised structures within areas protected by the Archaeological Survey of India, turning these historical sites into sources of public nuisance. This led to protracted litigation before the Delhi High Court, which ultimately chastised the state authorities for failing to act earlier. Had the authorities intervened promptly and decisively, the encroachment could have been halted without judicial intervention. This incident underscores the necessity of swift, preventive measures to deter illegal activities, reinforcing the idea that “bulldozer justice” is sometimes a necessary tool for protecting public interest and upholding the rule of law.
Judicial Support for Decisive Action Against Severe Crimes
While it is commonly argued that punishment should only follow a court’s verdict, there are situations where the evidence of guilt is so overwhelming that extensive legal adjudication seems redundant. Striking a balance between punishing perpetrators and rehabilitating them is ideal, but this approach often crumbles when severe crimes provoke public outrage. In such cases, even the Supreme Court of India has acknowledged the necessity for swift and decisive government action, as seen in Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab &Anr.
The recent tragic incident at RG Kar Medical Hospital, where a trainee doctor was raped and murdered, and the saga that follows starkly illustrate the consequences of delayed state action. The time lost has led to the destruction of crucial evidence, fuelling public outrage and exposing the failure of state machinery. Such delays do not just undermine public trust in the justice system; they embolden offenders, creating a dangerous precedent where justice delayed is justice denied.
Critics of “Bulldozer Justice” often vainly argue that the State targets minorities and marginalised groups, but this argument overlooks a fundamental truth – crime transcends religion and groups.
The law’s primary purpose is to maintain order and protect citizens, regardless of their background. The judiciary has consistently underscored the state’s responsibility to combat lawlessness. For instance, in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court, echoing Friedman, noted that criminal law must reflect society’s collective conscience. This underscores the importance of maintaining a legal framework that not only punishes wrongdoers but also resonates with the society’s expectations of justice and order. Moreover, courts have not shied away from endorsing demolitions when legally warranted.
The Supertech Ltd v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association case is a clear example where the Supreme Court upheld a High Court’s demolition order, reinforcing the rule of law while respecting constitutional boundaries.
Empirical Support for “Bulldozer” Actions in Curbing Crime and Enhancing Public Safety
The impact of “bulldozer” actions in a state like Uttar Pradesh is not merely anecdotal; it is backed by tangible data. According to reports from Uttar Pradesh’s police, organised crime has decreased by 20% following these decisive measures. A 2023 survey reveals that 65% of respondents believe such actions have effectively reduced local crime, further corroborating the link between bulldozer justice and enhanced public safety. Additionally, property-related crimes and illegal encroachments have seen a marked decline, underscoring the effectiveness of these actions in maintaining law and order.
Public support for bulldozer actions is undeniable. A 2024 CSDS survey shows that 70% of residents in UP endorse these measures, reflecting a 15% increase in public confidence within impacted areas. This strong public backing reflects a deeper societal demand for retributive justice, a concept articulated by John Rawls, where offenders are seen as deserving of their punishment. Retributive justice, far from being an outdated concept, serves as a crucial mechanism for quelling public anger and deterring future misconduct. The data, combined with public sentiment, makes it clear that bulldozer actions are not only necessary but also instrumental in restoring faith in the justice system.
The Way Forward
There is an urgent need for legislative reform to redress the escalating backlog of cases and expedite justice, especially in cases of heinous crimes. Recently, even the New York Times has covered the fact that there exists a staggering backlog in Indian courts that could potentially take over 300 years to be disposed. To combat this crisis, the implementation of summary trials that deliver swift yet fair justice is essential.
One way to go about it may be to establish a district-level committee comprising Judges, District Magistrates (DM), and Superintendents of Police (SP) and other eminent members of the legal fraternity, which could significantly enhance judicial efficiency and expedite case resolution.
Furthermore, while criticism of bulldozer actions, particularly the actions of leaders like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, often casts them in a negative light with labels such as “Bulldozer Baba”, this criticism often stems from political rivalry rather than a genuine legal concern.
The essence of the so-called “Bulldozer Justice” lies in its alignment with public expectations for safety and order. It reflects a necessary response to rampant crime a widespread judicial efficiency, harnessing public sentiment to enforce greater governance and ensure that retributive justice serves its intended purpose.
—The writer is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Lucknow, he holds a B.Tech from IIT Dhanbad. He is an ex-police officer, ex-Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, and a practising lawyer.