Bulldozer Justice in India: Controversial Urban Policy

Introduction

• The Supreme Court of India has recently stepped in to address a growing and controversial practice known as “bulldozer justice.” 
• This practice involves using bulldozers to demolish properties linked to individuals accused of serious crimes, often without following due process. 
• In a judgment led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, the apex court issued comprehensive guidelines to ensure that demolitions adhere to constitutional principles, respect fundamental rights, and prevent misuse of power.

Understanding Bulldozer Justice

• Bulldozer justice refers to the practice where state authorities deploy heavy machinery to demolish properties of individuals accused of crimes such as riots, murder, or rape. 
• While proponents argue it as a means to deter criminal behavior and maintain public order, critics see it as a violation of constitutional rights and judicial norms. 
• The actions often bypass proper legal channels, leading to concerns about fairness, accountability, and the rule of law.

A Timeline of Bulldozer Justice in India

• Uttar Pradesh: Since 2017, demolitions have targeted properties of individuals like Vikas Dubey and Atiq Ahmed, accused of heinous crimes.
• Madhya Pradesh: In Khargone, following communal clashes, authorities demolished 16 homes and 29 shops.
• Haryana: Properties in Nuh were demolished after communal violence erupted in the area, raising questions about procedural fairness.
• Maharashtra: The Mumbai municipal corporation partially demolished Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow after her controversial remarks comparing Mumbai to Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK).
• Delhi: In Jahangirpuri, bulldozer demolitions followed communal clashes in 2022, sparking national and international concern.

Read also: India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC): New Global Trade Route | UPSC

Supreme Court’s Guidelines on Demolitions

Notice Requirements:

• • Advance Notice: Property owners must receive a minimum of 15 days’ notice before demolition. The notice period begins when the owner acknowledges receipt.
  • Content of Notice: The notice must include reasons for the demolition, details of the structure, and a date for a hearing.
  • Transparency with Authorities: Officials must notify the District Magistrate or local Collector via email, ensuring a digital trail to prevent backdating.

Hearing and Final Order

• • Fair Hearing: A hearing must be conducted, and proceedings documented.
  • Detailed Final Order: The order should justify the necessity of demolition, specify whether partial or full demolition is required, and explain why other solutions are unfeasible.

Post-Order Implementation

• • Waiting Period: A 15-day buffer after the order allows the owner to challenge it in court or remove the structure voluntarily.
  • Comprehensive Documentation: Authorities must video-record the demolition, prepare inspection reports, and document the involvement of personnel.

Why Did the Supreme Court Intervene?

• The judgment underscores core constitutional values and seeks to rectify misuse of executive power:
• Separation of Powers: Only the judiciary can determine guilt and impose penalties. Allowing the executive to demolish properties as a punitive measure undermines this principle.
• Right to Shelter: Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life with dignity, including the right to shelter. Arbitrary demolitions deprive families of this fundamental right.
• Protection from Discrimination: Selectively targeting properties of certain individuals or communities raises concerns of bias and unconstitutional practices.
• Transparency and Accountability: By ensuring proper notice and documentation, the guidelines aim to curb high-handed actions and promote fairness.

Arguments in Favor of Bulldozer Justice

• Adherence to Laws:
  State governments argue that demolitions are conducted in accordance with municipal laws and urban development acts.
  • Example: In Uttar Pradesh, the demolitions of properties linked to Atiq Ahmed were justified under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, citing violations of construction norms. Similarly, actions against unauthorized properties in Madhya Pradesh were carried out under local urban planning regulations.
• Effective Deterrence: Bulldozer actions serve as a visible deterrent against criminal activities by demonstrating immediate consequences.
  • Example: After the demolition of Vikas Dubey’s properties in Uttar Pradesh, the state reported a significant decline in organized crime activities in the region, attributed to the perceived strictness of such actions.
• Maintaining Public Order: In situations of communal unrest, demolitions are seen as measures to restore peace and control.
  • Example: In Haryana’s Nuh district, bulldozer actions were taken against properties allegedly linked to individuals involved in communal violence. Authorities claimed this helped quell tensions and sent a strong message to maintain law and order.
• Universal Application: Governments contend that demolitions are not selectively targeted and affect individuals from all communities.
  • Example: In Madhya Pradesh, properties belonging to individuals from different religious groups, including Hindus, were demolished following the communal clashes in Khargone, ensuring that no community was singled out.
• Public Demand: Bulldozer justice resonates with public sentiment for swift action against criminals and illegal activities.
  • Example: The demolition of illegal structures linked to the accused in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri communal clashes was widely supported by local residents who viewed it as a firm response to ensure justice and public safety.

Concerns Over Bulldozer Justice

• Violation of Rule of Law: Demolitions often bypass legal procedures, such as issuing proper notices or holding hearings, violating natural justice.
  • Example: In Assam’s Dhalpur region, the demolition of homes during an eviction drive led to widespread protests. The residents claimed they were not given adequate notice or time to respond, which resulted in a public outcry and legal challenges.
• Fundamental Rights Breach: Arbitrary demolitions deprive individuals of their homes and livelihoods, violating their fundamental right to shelter under Article 21.
  • Example: In Gujarat’s Sabarmati area, properties of daily wage workers were demolished as part of an anti-encroachment drive, leaving families without shelter or alternate housing, sparking debates about the government’s accountability toward marginalized groups.
• Presumption of Innocence: Punitive demolitions against individuals accused of crimes undermine the principle that one is “innocent until proven guilty.”
  • Example: In Maharashtra, properties linked to individuals accused in a controversial land dispute were demolished before the investigation concluded, raising concerns over preemptive punishment without judicial approval.
• Targeting of Minorities: Several reports suggest that bulldozer actions disproportionately impact minority communities, perpetuating feelings of alienation and systemic bias.
  • Example: In Rajasthan’s Alwar district, demolitions targeted a Muslim-dominated neighborhood under the pretext of illegal construction, even as similar structures in nearby areas were untouched, raising questions of discrimination.
• Authoritarian Tendencies: Bulldozer justice reflects a shift toward authoritarian governance, where punitive actions bypass judicial oversight and suppress dissent.
  • Example: In Manipur, demolition actions were carried out against properties allegedly linked to activists protesting land acquisition policies, sparking criticism about silencing dissent through executive overreach.
• Ethical Concerns: Innocent family members of accused individuals are often collateral damage, raising questions about fairness and proportionality.
  • Example: In Uttar Pradesh’s Prayagraj, bulldozer demolitions targeted a home where the accused rioter’s extended family, including elderly parents and children, were residing, leaving them homeless despite their non-involvement in the alleged crime.

See more: Supreme Court Urges Stronger Laws to End Child Marriages | UPSC

Legal Precedents Supporting the Verdict

• Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): Established that executive actions must be “fair, just, and reasonable.”
• Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana vs Inderjit Singh (2008): Prohibited demolitions without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
• Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Held that eviction without notice violates the right to livelihood.
• Punjab and Haryana High Court (2023): Halted demolitions in Nuh, citing procedural lapses and potential ethnic bias.

Way Forward

• Detailed Pre-Demolition Surveys: Authorities should conduct comprehensive surveys and assessments before initiating demolitions.
• Uniform Nationwide Guidelines: Clear, pan-India procedural guidelines should be incorporated into municipal laws.
• Shifting the Burden of Proof: The onus should be on authorities to justify demolitions, ensuring accountability.
• Independent Oversight Committees: Judicial and civil society panels should review demolition cases to prevent arbitrary actions.
• Focus on Rehabilitation: Comprehensive policies for resettling affected families must align with international human rights standards, ensuring compensation and alternative housing.