Wrong doers do not bother about the barking judiciary | Arun Srivastava

It does not appear that UP CM Yogi Adityanath had bothered to listen to the directive of the Supreme Court on the bulldozer action. Though belated, the court ought to have taken note of this new persecutory cultural move, soon after it was unleashed by Yogi in his home state Uttar Pradesh, it does not appear to have any impact on Yogi. After SC verdict Yogi described use of bulldozer as a “Need, not an achievement. Use of bulldozer has a political implication was clear from his saying; “if there is any encroachment anywhere, then a bulldozer is used to clear it. So, the bulldozer can provide infrastructure as well as remove encroachment, and I think we have taught people to use it in a better way,"

Undeniably, Yogi outright dismissed the court’s observation that bulldozer demolitions carried out by state authorities subverted the authority of courts and violated natural justice, the citizen’s right to shelter and inflicted collective punishment on the family of the accused. By emphasising that use of a bulldozer is a need, Yogi provided a moral boost to his officials implementing his desire.

The Supreme Court has slammed Yogi government for ’inhuman and illegal’ demolition in Prayagraj. It also directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay within six weeks Rs 10 lakh compensation each to the house owners. The bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said there was "rule of law in the country" and residential structures of citizens couldn’t be demolished in such fashion. The action was carried out in a "high handed" manner. "This shocks our conscience. There is something called right to shelter, due process of law," the bench said.

But sheer irony court’s observation has no relevance for Yogi. He is even not willing to accept that the demolition actions, especially in Prayagraj were carried out without following the due legal procedure and it obviously sent a "shocking and wrong signal". True speaking action of Yogi has not come as surprise. Rightist and communal forces usually resort to use of ruthless state power to force the people obey their diktats and abide by their decisions.
However, the argument of the petitioners’ counsel has been surprising. He said that the state government “wrongly” demolished the houses “thinking the land belonged to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023 in a police encounter.” Does the law allow the state government to demolish the house of gangster arbitrarily, without following the legal norms? Does the law empower government and its agencies to demolish houses of a gangsters? There is no denying that the government has willingly flouted rule of law. Is it that a gangster is not the citizen of the country? The government should have prosecuted him for his criminal activities according to the existing laws? But no Yogi resorted to this kind of dastardly action as he was a Muslim and belonged to his rival political party.

Two recent judgments of the Supreme Court against the bulldozer justice perpetrated by BJP governments, provide an insight into how the state machinery is being used against religious minorities and political opponents by authoritarian ‘Bulldozer Raj’. However this is utopian to believe that the court orders will stop such practice. The bureaucrats will manage to interpolate these orders. An insight into the cases of demolition would make it explicit that the bulldozer model was resorted to terrorise the Muslims and other anti saffron activists.

These two orders are skewed. It is an open secret that the houses were demolished out of hatred and vengeance towards the Muslims. The decision of Yogi was more conjured by his hatred towards the Muslims. In all fairness the SC should have directed Yogi and his officials who carried out his order to pay from their own salaries. According to the court order, the compensation will be paid by the PDA. This money is of the common people, collected from them as tax or in any other form. Quite interestingly the officials culprit of violating the basic human rights are not being penalised. They are let free after some strict oral observations. These oral observations are of no consequences. They will only fall in line if their financial interest is targeted.

Initially the houses were demolished by spending public money. The bulldozer operators, the police or the officials who were involved in the operation were paid from the public money. Now the latest order to pay compensation implies paying public money to the victims. If the SC really intended to penalise the officials for their overjealous action, it should have ordered for deduction from their salaries or had directed them to pay from their pockets .

Nonetheless the amount of Rs 10 lakh is indeed peanut. During last four years of his homelessness, the victim had to hire a house on rent. He had to pay a huge money for fighting the legal battle, at the HC and SC. The lawyers charge huge fees. While the government or the officials used the public money to fight the legal battle, the victim has to borrow money on huge interest rate. The officials did not have to pay from their own pockets. The judges sitting on the bench could not deny that the penalty amount is quite negligible. The house owners will continue to live in penury.

In the first judgement, a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the unlawful demolition of the ancestral house and shop of Manoj Tibrewal, a senior journalist, on the grounds of alleged encroachment on a national highway, held that “Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence. There is a grave danger that if high handed and unlawful behaviour is permitted by any wing or officer of the state, demolition of citizens’ properties will take place as a selective reprisal for extraneous reasons. Citizens’ voices cannot be throttled by a threat of destroying their properties and homesteads. The ultimate security which a human being possesses is to the homestead. ... Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter. ... Any action in respect of public or private property must be backed by due process of law.”

While deciding the case the Supreme Court had laid down certain guidelines which state had to adhere. But it did not care for the court order as is evident from the recent demolitions and observation of Yogi. What was worse it even did not follow the basic norms of serving notices to the victims. In most of the cases no move was initiated to ascertain the nature of encroachment. In addition the Court has mandated that, thereafter, reasonable notice would be furnished to the person against whom any adverse action is proposed and it is upon the failure of the said person concerned to act, that the authorities can proceed to remove the encroachment, in accordance with law.

In the second Judgement, pronounced barely a week later, on 13 November 2024, a 2-Judge bench of the Supreme Court laid down comprehensive pan-India guidelines on the issue of demolition of residential and commercial properties by the state machinery without following due process of law, on the ground of the accused being allegedly involved in criminal offences. Significantly the Court had remarked that a house is not simply a commodity, rather “an embodiment of the collective hopes of a family or individuals’ stability and security”.

This unconstitutional practice was first unleashed by Yogi. The court had observed “A protest takes place in a locality or neighbourhood, which turns violent. Soon after, the police declares that a certain individual, or set of individuals, have been identified as the “mastermind” behind the violence. Immediately after that, the municipality declares that these individuals are residing in unauthorised buildings (often – as in the most recent case – with backdated notices of doubtful authenticity). The buildings (homes) are then demolished. In the normal course of things, the time period between the police declaring that it has identified the masterminds behind the violence, the municipality declaring that the buildings are illegal, and the actual demolition, is under twenty-four hours”.

If a citizen’s house is demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law, it will be totally unconstitutional. The executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. If the executive demolishes the property such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits. RSS and BJP are desperate to enforce the rightist legal system. Their changing the names of IPC and CRPC are testimony to it. They have been trying to force collective punishment which has no place in Indian jurisprudence. No person shall be punished except for his own guilt. The officials always ignore the basic tenet of personal hearing which is mandatory and that minutes of such hearing would be recorded. Before carrhying out demolition the officials has to clarify that the “extreme step of demolition is the only option available and other options like compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not available”.

Let us look at the demolition of house of Fahim Khan in Mumbai. There is a famous urdu couplet (shayari) “Log toot jate hain ek ghar banana meinTum taras nahin khate us ghar ko girane mein” (People get broken in building a house/You do not take pity while you demolish the same house). Fahim was arrested for being the mastermind of Nagpur violence that erupted after the Hindu zealots wanted to demolish Aurangzeb’s tomb. The police did not arrest any of the Hindu zealots, but it described Fahim as the master mind. While he was in jail, his house was ravaged.

Torturing and victimising Muslims by using the weapon of Bulldozer Justice, is primarily aimed to turning Muslims into a second class citizen and forcing them to be subservient to Hindus. The RSS and BJP leaders are aware of the fact that cannot comprehend to force the Muslims to leave India. They can be forced to subjugate. The RSS and BJP leaders are nonetheless have no clear concept of how to make them toe their line.

The RSS and BJP leaders are distinctly divided on this issue, The saffron ecosystem has at least three line on this. The leaders of these three political groups are often found to be working cross purpose. While the groups like Bajrang Dal and Vishwa Hindu Parishad are for complete dissipation of the Muslims. The followers of these two organisations are more concerned of loss of their business interest. An emerging Muslim small businessmen or trader would be the potential wrecker of their business interest. Basically this is the reason that target the business interest of Muslims. They nurse the view that Muslims must not be allowed to carry their business or trading activities. The recent punch on identifying the name of the shop owner or giving a call to the Hindus notto purchase from Muslims is part of their design.

Yet another Hindu group that has been opposed to Muslims is the Hindu middle class. The creation and emergence of strong Muslim middle class has unnerved the Hindu middle class. This Muslim class has come to know of the importance of education and health. They are spending on these two sectors. A significant number of Muslim educated youths atre entering into the IT and private sector. They have opened up shops and stalls in big malls.

In Naya Bharat, new India, Bulldozer is no longer an instrument to move earth. This is the instrument to check rise and expansion of New Muslim class. This is weapon to punish the Muslims. Use of this “weapon” has earned Yogi Adityanath an unenviable nickname “Bulldozer Baba”. The third section of the saffron brigade opposed to Muslims are those who are more inclined to bring the rich and affluent Muslims in their fold. Their orientation is completely political. They also want the backward caste Muslims (Pasmanda) to be with them. Pasmanda Muslims are mainly converts and RSS is hopeful that ultimately they will come back home. RSS continue to maintain its [pressure tactics.

When you demolish a house, you do not only destroy a roof over head of a family. You take away its dignity, its sense of belonging to a nation of which it has been so proud of. “Bulldozer justice” has been the most effective weapon of RSS and BJP to make the Muslims depend on them for retrieving their dignity. RSS and BJP in fact intend to their life and social and cultural ethos. They are working on the design to make Muslims distance from Islam. The RSS and BJP have been surviving on Islamophobia.

For last eight years Yogi has been popularising retributive violence of the ‘Bulldozer Justice’. According to an Amnesty International report, “The authorities in Gujarat, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh claimed that the demolition of Muslim properties was based on violations of land regulations, such as not securing the required permissions from the local municipalities, or operating businesses on government land, and other regulatory infractions. However, there are widespread similar breaches of land regulations by Hindus as well, and the measures these authorities have taken have been directed largely at Muslims and not Hindus.”

In his endeavour to become the Hindu face of Saffron brigade, he had adored himself with the inglorious adjective of “Bulldozer Baba”. Addressing a meeting of the Hindu zealots, he even prided himself of the fact that Muslims offering prayers had vanished from the streets of Uttar Pradesh. Last year on April 21, Adityanath was given a unique guard of honour by a horde of bulldozers when he went to the Bilaspur district of Chhattisgarh for election campaigning.

A comparative analysis of the functioning and reach out of saffron ecosystem and judiciary would reveal that while RSS and BJP have been expanding fast riding on the shoulder of falsehood, judiciary has been consistently losing respect among the common people of India. Recent studies show that the while the status and faith in the judiciary has declined, more and more aggrieved people are looking towards the mercenaries and gangsters for instance justice. This is the reason that RSS and BJP have been promoting the mercenary culture.

Some of the recent judgements of higher judiciary, High Courts or even Supreme Court, had eroded the trust of the people into the judiciary. People have patiently watched how some judges obliged the politicians and in turn they were offered creamy assignments. Of course, the political institution has been primarily responsible for people turning sceptical of the democracy and its functioning, the judiciary has also a played a crucial role in peoples’ alienation. People feel Judiciary simply barks and does not bite. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Indians have lost faith in the judicial system. They had started developing a creeping cynicism towards the police and the judiciary, including the highest courts of the land.

How Narendra Modi and Amit Shah misused the Enforcement Directorate and CBI to insult, torture their political opponents and critics has been an open secret. Only on January 2, 2024 Supreme Court pulled up the ED and expressed concern in conducting probe, even saying that the agency was virtually forcing a person to make a statement, suggesting a “shocking state of affair.” The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George made this remarks while upholding the quashing of the arrest of former Haryana Congress MLA Surendra Panwar by the ED in a money laundering case. The case of Shiv Sena leader and editor of Samana Sanjay Raut is well publicised case. The Supreme Court had severely pulled up the ED. It has been modern public face of ED torture and repression. The case of Jharkhand chief minister Homen Soren will also be remembered as the classic case of ED torture.

Though Supreme Court harshly criticised the ED and CBI officials, it did not penalise any of the officials of these agencies for violating the rule and law of land. These officials enjoying the political patronage are thick skinned. They are not at all concerned of the judicial remarks. Such oral remarks help them get closer to the politicians and present themselves as their well-wishers.