Justice Restored: Supreme Court Prohibits Bulldozer Injustice | Narender Nagarwal

Introduction

In a landmark ruling, In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022, The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has effectively dismantled the practice known as "bulldozer justice"—more aptly referred to as "bulldozer injustice." This approach involves punishing accused individuals through the demolition of their properties—homes, shops, and restaurants—without adhering to due process or necessary administrative compliance, including denying them the opportunity for a fair hearing. The apex court has categorically prohibited this form of administrative overreach, labelling it as complete anarchy and lawlessness. This methodology has frequently been followed in BJP-ruled states i.e. Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam, where it disproportionately targets the properties of individuals accused in specific criminal cases. Reports indicate that a significant number of those affected by these demolitions belong to Muslim communities. This article critically examines these issues and advocates for accountability regarding the harm inflicted by bulldozer injustice on innocent families.

Troubling Trends

Since 2017, the bulldozer, an industrial machine, has evolved into a political tool and symbol within Indian politics, notably in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. This phenomenon was initiated by UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath of the BJP, who frequently invokes the machine and proudly claims that the accused homes will be demolished. While bulldozers are commonly employed throughout India to clear illegal constructions, they have come to represent law enforcement’s efforts in addressing property-related crimes, communal violence, riots, and alleged criminal activities. Demolition of the houses of the accused has been increasingly reported in BJP-ruled states as a measure against alleged illegal constructions, encroachment and violation of municipal laws. Following its usage in political messaging in Uttar Pradesh, the bulldozer was used in Madhya Pradesh, too, to convey political messages aimed at showing a strong stance against those who dared to protest against government policies, schemes and legislations. The fact-finding committee led by prominent social worker Harsh Mandar suggest that certain Muslims perceive the use of bulldozers action against their homes, shops and eating establishments as targeted, and the administration acted in a biased manner. Critics argue that giving up on the rule of law and adopting "bulldozer justice" is the initial move toward an authoritarian society with no respect for the constitution and rule of law principles. In such a society, individuals’ safety, life, and liberty would depend on the arbitrary decisions of state officials. Moreover, bulldozer justice epitomizes a form of collective punishment where the families of the accused face repercussions for alleged crimes in which they are not involved. These demolitions often target the homes of those accused, effectively punishing entire households and communities for the actions of a single individual. This method of administering justice starkly contrasts the principle that punishment should be personal and proportional, applied solely to the individual found guilty of an offence following due process, the court observed.

The use of bulldozers to demolish the homes of individuals accused of criminal activity in India represents a troubling trend in the exercise of state power. This phenomenon, termed "bulldozer justice," is emblematic of the broader issues of executive overreach, arbitrary state actions, and disregard for legal protections and due process doctrine. Particularly in states such as Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, demolitions have disproportionately impacted the homes of individuals from minority communities, especially Muslims, raising serious questions about discrimination and the weaponization of state machinery against marginalized groups-this is nothing but state crime. The latest judgment delivered by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, the Supreme Court of India has provided some measure of redress. However, this development highlights ongoing concerns regarding structural injustices, executive overreach, and violations of constitutional rights. While the judgment is a positive step, it comes too late; over the years, the Supreme Court has largely remained silent in the face of the rampant lawlessness exhibited by various bureaucratic agencies, particularly as it affects members of the Muslim minority.

Absence of Rule of Law and Complete Anarchy

It is a well-documented fact that since the BJP came to power, civil liberties and the right to dissent have severely diminished. During the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019, the government introduced controversial provisions in the citizenship law that specifically targeted Muslims. As a result, many protesters, primarily Muslims, were arrested and continue to remain incarcerated. The police action was notably harsh in these instances, with even some women protesters being detained for exercising their right to protest against a law that disproportionately affects their community. Furthermore, the aggressive demolition actions taken against those who dared to speak out in BJP-ruled states exemplified a troubling pattern of repressive treatment.

The message is clear: Muslims are often silenced, unable to voice genuine grievances or to advocate for their human rights through protests or demonstrations. The concept of "Bulldozer justice" epitomizes a troubling shift toward anarchy and lawlessness, where brute executive actions undermine the rule of law. This form of extra-judicial punishment circumvents established legal processes and flouts the essential principle of separation of powers. Once symbols of construction and development, bulldozers have been repurposed into tools of destruction, as state governments demolish the properties of those accused without proper legal recourse. The underlying implication is one of state dominance and impunity: individuals deemed undesirable by the authorities can be punished summarily, often without trial or conviction. This arbitrary exercise of power disregards due process and signals a serious violation of the principles that form the foundation of India’s constitutional democracy.

The erosion of the rule of law through what is often called “bulldozer justice” is further compounded by the communal undertones accompanying these actions. In several high-profile cases, the properties targeted for demolition have predominantly belonged to members of the Muslim community, although there have been instances where non-Muslims were also affected. This selective approach to punitive demolitions reflects a troubling pattern of collective punishment, where entire families and communities bear the consequences for the alleged actions of a single individual. Such practices undermine the principles of justice in a democratic society and raise significant concerns about bias and discrimination.

Violation of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The trend of bulldozer demolitions represents a significant violation of the principle of separation of powers, a cornerstone of the Constitution of India. This principle asserts that the executive, legislature, and judiciary must function independently, each serving as a check on the others. In instances of bulldozer demolitions, the executive branch—primarily through police and municipal authorities—has assumed judicial powers by issuing orders arbitrarily and conducting demolition drives without adhering to due legal process. State authorities undermine the judiciary’s essential role in determining guilt and suitable consequences by circumventing the judicial process and executing demolition orders as punitive actions. The court’s judgement emphasizes the glaring failures of administrative, police, and municipal authorities in enforcing punitive measures against alleged wrongdoers, highlighting that their primary responsibility is to investigate and compile evidence. The judiciary holds the prerogative to assess the evidence, convict individuals, and impose penalties. This raises the question: how can the police and municipal authorities overstep the established boundaries of the rule of law and constitutional limits?

The blurring of lines between executive and judicial functions undermines public confidence in the justice system’s impartiality. Furthermore, it establishes a troubling precedent in which the executive can unilaterally penalize individuals without judicial oversight, fostering an environment of lawlessness. The bulldozer, employed as a tool of justice, represents a flagrant disregard for established norms and constitutional provisions designed to protect individual rights from the arbitrary exercise of state power.

Who Will Compensate the Victims?

While the Supreme Court’s judgment has provided relief to thousands of victims, it is essential that this relief is not merely superficial. The court has firmly emphasized the necessity of addressing the compensation issue for these victims, which should be taken on by the officials accountable for this turmoil. A significant concern in this context is whether compensation will be realized for individuals who have lost their homes and livelihoods due to executive overreach. In states like Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, bulldozer demolitions have left many families homeless and traumatized. The affected families, often innocent victims, face both financial and psychological harm due to state actions that bypass legal procedures. Many of these individuals belong to economically vulnerable and socially marginalized groups, which exacerbates the long-term effects on their lives.

The issue of compensation has become increasingly urgent in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, which recognized the illegality of certain actions. The Court has offered some hope to the victims by emphasizing the importance of legal recourse; however, it remains uncertain whether and how the state will facilitate compensation for the irreparable harm caused. In the absence of comprehensive compensation measures, the wounds inflicted by this form of "bulldozer justice" are likely to further deepen the rift between the state and its citizens.

Bulldozer as a Symbol in Electoral Politics

The audacity of bulldozer justice is accentuated by its role as a symbol of state power within political campaigns. Once an emblem of progress and development, the bulldozer has been rebranded as a visual metaphor for the BJP’s tough approach to law and order. At electoral rallies, these machines are prominently displayed as symbols of strength and authority, subtly endorsing the arbitrary exercise of state power. This politicization of law enforcement reflects an endorsement of vigilante justice and strengthens the state’s control over its citizens by circumventing judicial processes.

The use of a powerful “weapon” symbol as a political tool during election rallies contributes to the normalization of state-sanctioned violence and intimidation. Such trends are deeply concerning and raise questions about our assertion of being a civilized society. The bulldozer, employed as a campaign prop, poignantly illustrates how the concept of "bulldozer justice" has become ingrained and legitimized within the political discourse of certain states, particularly where a strong communal narrative exists. In this entire debate, the questionable role of the national media cannot be overlooked. The mainstream media has consistently reported on the demolition drive and fostered an environment akin to placing a vulnerable individual in an open arena, surrounded by hungry lions, while spectators cheer on such merciless actions. This situation is truly perplexing.

Judgement —A Ray of Hope against State Crime

The recent judgment delivered by Supreme Court Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan has reignited hope among victims of unjust and illegal demolitions. By recognizing the illegality and unconstitutionality of punitive actions, the judgement emphasizes the significance of due process, the doctrine of separation of powers, and the safeguarding of fundamental rights. This landmark decision marks a vital step toward curbing the abuse of executive power and reaffirming the supremacy of constitutional protections over arbitrary state actions.

This profound judgment brings to light broader questions regarding the harm already suffered by the victims of bulldozer justice. Numerous families have been left homeless, and the psychological and economic impact of this devastation cannot be easily reversed. The issue of retrospective justice is pressing: Who will be held accountable for these families’ suffering? Who will guarantee that they receive compensation, rehabilitation, and the chance to rebuild their lives?

Conclusion

The bulldozer injustice phenomenon in India is a stark example of executive overreach and a blatant disregard for constitutional principles. It calls into question our claim to be a society founded on rule of law doctrine. This form of administrative lawlessness signifies a troubling breakdown of the rule of law, characterized by violations of the doctrine of separation of powers, neglect of due process, and the selective targeting of marginalized communities-especially Muslims. The recent judgment by the Supreme Court offers a glimmer of hope by reaffirming the fundamental rights of citizens and the importance of judicial oversight. However, the journey toward genuine justice remains unfinished until mechanisms for compensation and accountability are implemented for those affected by the injustices of bulldozer justice.

While providing a comprehensive process for conducting lawful demolitions nationwide, the court emphasized that if any demolition is determined to violate its orders, the responsible officer or officers will be held accountable for restoring the demolished property at their own personal expense and compensating for damages. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan observed, “The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right”. The key highlight of the judgment is that the apex court outlined the necessary procedures to follow before the demolition of houses, including mandatory videography of the demolition drive.

The Court specified a set of steps that must be adhered to before any demolition takes place. Even after a demolition order is issued, the affected parties are entitled to some time to challenge the decision before the appropriate authority. Furthermore, in cases where individuals choose not to contest the demolition order, adequate time must still be allowed for them to vacate the premises. "It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the street overnight. Heavens will not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period," the Court observed. The Court has clarified that these directives will not pertain to unauthorized structures situated in public areas, including roads, streets, footpaths, adjacent to railway lines, or near bodies of water. This exemption also applies in situations where a court of law issues a specific order. This ruling undoubtedly has significant implications for Indian civil society.

(Author: Narender Nagarwal, teaches at Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi)