Bulldozer Justice

“Bulldozer Justice” refers to the controversial practice in India where authorities use heavy machinery, such as bulldozers, to demolish properties belonging to individuals accused of serious crimes like communal violence, murder, or rape. These actions are often criticized for bypassing the due legal processes mandated for demolishing immovable properties, raising concerns about fairness and legality.

Instances of Bulldozer Justice in India

1. Uttar Pradesh
   • The use of bulldozers to target properties of individuals accused of serious crimes has been prominent since 2017.
   • Notable cases include demolitions linked to Vikas Dubey and Atiq Ahmed.
2. Madhya Pradesh
   • Following communal clashes in Khargone, authorities demolished 16 houses and 29 shops across four locations.
3. Haryana
   • Bulldozer action was carried out in Nuh after incidents of communal violence.
4. Maharashtra
   • A portion of actor-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow in Mumbai was demolished after her controversial remarks comparing Mumbai to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK).
5. Delhi
   • In 2022, bulldozer operations were undertaken in Jahangirpuri following communal clashes.

Supreme Court Guidelines on Demolition Practices

1. Notice Requirements

• Advance Notice: Authorities must provide at least 15 days’ notice before demolition, starting from the date the notice is received by the property owner.
• Detailed Notice: The notice must include reasons for demolition, a description of the structure, and the date of a personal hearing to allow the owner to contest the action.
• Notification to Officials: Authorities must inform the District Magistrate or local Collector via email to ensure transparency and prevent backdating.

2. Hearing and Final Order

• Recorded Proceedings: A hearing must be held, and the proceedings must be documented.
• Justification in Final Order: The demolition order should explain why the issue cannot be resolved without demolition, specify whether the entire or part of the structure will be demolished, and justify the action.

3. Post-Order Implementation

• Waiting Period: Authorities must wait another 15 days after issuing the demolition order to allow challenges in court or voluntary removal.
• Documentation: Video recording, pre-demolition inspection reports, and demolition reports must be prepared to ensure accountability.

Note: These guidelines do not apply to unauthorized structures in public areas or demolitions mandated by court orders.

Rationale of the Supreme Court

1. Violation of Separation of Powers
   • The judiciary alone is empowered to determine guilt and impose penalties. Bulldozer actions as punishment encroach on judicial functions.
2. Right to Shelter
   • Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity, which includes the right to shelter. Arbitrary demolitions violate this fundamental right.
3. Protection Against Discrimination
   • Selective targeting of properties without addressing similar violations elsewhere suggests ulterior motives. The guidelines aim to prevent discriminatory actions.
4. Ensuring Accountability
   • The mandated protocols promote transparency and accountability, minimizing misuse of authority and “high-handed” actions.

Arguments Supporting Bulldozer Justice

1. Legal Compliance
   • State officials argue that demolitions are carried out per municipal laws, such as the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act.
2. Effective Deterrence
   • The approach serves as a deterrent against illegal activities and helps maintain public order.
3. Restoration of Order
   • Demolitions during communal unrest help restore calm and stability, as seen in Haryana post-Nuh violence.
4. Non-Discriminatory Application
   • Officials assert that demolitions target individuals across all communities and are not specific to minorities.
5. Visible Action
   • Supporters claim it demonstrates decisive action against criminals, aligning with public demands for justice.

Concerns About Bulldozer Justice

1. Violation of Rule of Law
   • Skipping legal procedures undermines the principles of natural justice.
2. Infringement of Fundamental Rights
   • Arbitrary demolitions violate the right to shelter, a component of the right to life under Article 21.
3. Presumption of Innocence
   • Actions against accused individuals conflict with the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”
4. Targeting Minorities
   • Reports suggest selective targeting, particularly of Muslim communities, raising concerns about communal bias.
5. Authoritarian Tendencies
   • Critics argue it signals a shift toward authoritarian governance, using demolitions as a tool of political retribution.
6. Ethical Concerns
   • Punishing entire families for an individual’s alleged actions raises moral questions about proportionality and fairness.

Other Key Judicial Observations on Demolitions

1. Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)
   • Executive procedures must be “fair, just, and reasonable.”
2. Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana vs Inderjit Singh (2008)
   • No demolition, even of illegal structures, should proceed without prior notice and a hearing.
3. Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
   • Evictions without notice violate the right to livelihood under Article 21.
4. Punjab & Haryana High Court on Nuh Demolitions
   • Demolitions were halted, citing lack of due process and potential ethnic targeting.

Way Forward

1. Comprehensive Surveys
   • Pre-demolition surveys and adherence to procedural protocols are essential.
2. Pan-India Guidelines
   • Uniform procedures should be incorporated into municipal laws nationwide.
3. Accountability of Authorities
   • The burden of proof for justifying demolitions should lie with authorities.
4. Independent Oversight
   • A review committee comprising judicial and civil society members can ensure impartial assessments.
5. Rehabilitation Framework
   • Proper mechanisms for the rehabilitation of affected families should align with international human rights standards.