Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Proving yet again that the pen is mightier than the sword, or a bulldozer, the Supreme Court referring to concerns over houses being demolished belonging to those accused of crimes, said it would lay down “pan-India” guidelines on the issue. Justice BR Gavai, while hearing a plea against the demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area soon after the 2022 riots also remarked: “It is a position of law. How can anybody’s house be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.”
The bench, which also comprised Justice KV Viswanathan, while inviting suggestions from the concerned parties for the proposed guidelines also said: “We propose to lay down certain guidelines on a pan-India basis so that the concerns with regard to the issues raised are taken care of.” Clarifying that it would not protect unauthorised constructions, the bench went on to say: “Every municipal law has a provision for demolition of unauthorised construction… we are not going to protect any unauthorised construction or encroachment on public roads, not even the temples on the public road.”
The petitioners in the case were aggrieved with the fact that many state governments were increasingly resorting to the use of bulldozers to demolish properties of people accused in crimes. Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, however, countered by saying that all demolitions carried out in the state strictly followed procedure, but the petitioners were trying to project it in a different way.
Mehta further referred to an affidavit filed by the state way back in 2022 wherein it had been stated that: “Merely because a person is alleged to have been a part of some offence can never be a ground based upon which his immovable property can be demolished. The demolition of an immovable property can take place only for violation of, and in accordance with, the procedure prescribed in the respective, applicable municipal law or law governing development authorities of the area. In other words, no immovable property can be demolished solely on the ground that the owner or occupant of such property is involved in a criminal offence. Demolition, whether in part or on full, can take place only on the grounds mentioned in the municipal law, governing legal construction, and after following the procedure therein.”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, was, however, not satisfied with this revert and insisted that “a statement be recorded that bulldozer justice will not be meted out to people. Every state is now indulging in this”. Mehta readily accepted the position as put forth by them in their affidavit to which the bench said that they will now issue appropriate guidelines in the matter.
Justice Viswanathan also went on to ask: “Why can’t some guidelines…not be laid down? Notice, time period, response, reply, order, time for legal remedy, avoid backdating, some communication with central secretariat, the nodal agency, automated reply so that there is no fear. And in taking off from what you have fairly and in a non-adversarial manner said, so that it’s put in position across the states, and directions issued.” The bench also took note of the fact that implementation can only be possible if there exists a streamlined procedure. “Though this is the position of law, it is seen that it is followed more in breach.”
“Bulldozer justice”, also known as “bulldozer politics”, refers to the practice of using heavy-duty machinery to demolish houses of alleged criminals, communal violence rioters and accused criminals. As part of “bulldozer justice”, houses, shops and small establishments have been bulldozed across India, especially in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Assam and Maharashtra. It has been in the news off late as people are agitating that houses of people who have been accused of crimes are being bulldozed by the state governments. Many are even questioning as to how the action can be taken even before allegations against a person are proven. They have also questioned why the administration must punish the whole family for the crime of one.
Bulldozer justice as a term emerged for the first time in September 2017, when a few months after he became the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Yogi Adityanath, issued a warning about using bulldozers against those involved in crime. He was even quoted as saying: “My government will bulldoze houses of anyone even thinking of perpetuating crime against women and weaker sections of the society.”
In the years that followed, several properties, including those allegedly linked to certain gangster-turned-politicians were razed by the Yogi government. It is reported that after coming to power, Yogi with the help of bulldozers freed up over 67,000 acres of government land from the clutches of land mafia in the state. In fact, such was the state of affairs that the UP chief minister earned the nickname of “Bulldozer Baba”.
Bulldozer justice came to the forefront once again in May 2022 when Nupur Sharma, the then spokesperson of the BJP made certain allegedly offensive remarks about Prophet Muhammad during a TV debate. Her comments angered a few Muslims, who then carried out protests. It was after these demonstrations, which also turned violent, that the UP government carried out statewide demolitions, claiming that these were part of a drive to remove “illegal” structures from the state. Madhya Pradesh’s former chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan also following suit and turned into “bulldozer mama” when he allegedly ordered authorities to demolish houses and shops across four locations in Khargone following communal clashes.
Not being left behind, Delhi also witnessed “bulldozer justice” in April 2022 following the communal clashes in North West Delhi’s Jahangirpuri when bulldozers were sent in to raze parts of several structures, including the gate of a mosque. Officials had justified the demolitions by stating that they were a “regular exercise” against illegal encroachments, targeting only temporary structures.
In Haryana’s Nuh, too, bulldozer justice was on display, days after communal violence broke out, killing six people. Recently, the Maharashtra authorities also resorted to bulldozer politics in Mumbai’s Mira Road suburb, two days after the area saw communal clashes.
However, this is not the first time that the apex court has spoken up against bulldozer justice. Justice Madan B Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court, has also been quoted as saying: “Bulldozer justice is contrary to all canons of law. A person’s home cannot be demolished only because he has participated in communal violence or a riot or committed some illegal act.” The Madhya Pradesh High Court has also recently pulled up the local administration of Ujjain for demolishing a property without complying with the principles of natural justice and law. It stated: “It has become fashionable for the local administration to demolish any house by drawing up proceedings, without complying with the principle of natural justice, and publicise the demolition in the papers.”
Time and again, justification of their actions has been given by the states concerned wherein they have stated that the aggrieved “have projected it as if somebody committed an offence and his house was demolished. But we have been able to show from affidavits that he was independently issued notice long back, notice was repeated, since he did not appear, etc (subsequent actions were carried out)”.
Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand, cautioned: “Don’t get into the facts. We just have some guidelines so that tomorrow there is no bulldozer… And so that it is documented and checked, so that neither of them can take advantage—people who are having unauthorised constructions, nor the authorities.”
The fact that bulldozer justice suffers from various drawbacks cannot be denied. It not only disproportionately impacts the marginalized and minority communities, perpetuating existing inequalities and social divisions, but also undermines the “rule of law” by bypassing established legal processes and undermining the principles of rule of law and due process. By eroding the public trust in political institutions, the practice of bulldozer justice often violates basic human rights, including the right to shelter and protection from arbitrary state action.
The lack of resettlement or compensation for those evicted also raises serious ethical concerns as bulldozer justice combines the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, leading to unjust outcomes. Punishment here is primarily directed not only at the guilty, but also at innocent family members. Moreover, the sudden and often violent nature of demolitions can cause significant psychological trauma, not just for the individuals directly affected but for entire communities.
It cannot be forgotten that in a democratic society, justice should not be about retribution, and punitive measures should be aimed at reforming the guilty. Retributive justice in today’s world is not only archaic, but also inappropriate as unlike other theories of justice that focus on future outcomes (such as deterrence or rehabilitation), it focuses on responding to past wrongdoing which can lead to excessively harsh punishments, especially in cases where the concept of proportionality is not well-defined.
The stance taken by the apex court, wherein guidelines are to be formulated for demolitions in such cases, is a step in the right direction as “an eye for an eye” and “a house for a wrong” as in this case, will make the entire world homeless!
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi