||Black and White Digital News ||

||September 04 ,2024 ||

The Supreme Court of India’s recent stance against the practice of demolishing the homes of alleged offenders—often perceived as a punitive measure against minority communities—raises crucial concerns about the misuse of power and the erosion of legal principles in the name of governance. This form of retribution, colloquially termed “bulldozer justice,” has increasingly become a part of the political and administrative toolkit in several BJP-ruled states. The Court’s intervention, while welcome, might come too late to counter the deep-seated issues surrounding this controversial practice.

Judicial Acknowledgment of Illegal Demolitions:

Justice B.R. Gavai, presiding over a Division Bench with Justice K.V. Viswanathan, underscored that the law does not permit the demolition of someone’s home merely because they are accused of a crime. The Court acknowledged the troubling trend where houses belonging to those accused, particularly from the Muslim community, are being demolished without due process. This practice has been starkly visible in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, and Delhi, where the demolition of homes following communal incidents has been carried out under the guise of anti-encroachment drives.

The Supreme Court’s recognition of this as a problem is significant. It signals a potential judicial pushback against what appears to be a politically motivated use of state power. The Court’s decision to consider laying down uniform guidelines for such demolitions across India is aimed at ensuring that the process is not misused under the pretext of enforcing local laws on encroachments and unauthorized constructions.

The Communal Symbolism of the Bulldozer:

However, as the Court moves towards establishing guidelines, it must navigate the complex landscape of communal and political symbolism that the bulldozer has come to represent. The use of bulldozers in this context has been seen as an instrument of collective punishment, disproportionately targeting specific communities, often without distinguishing between the accused and other innocent family members. This has given rise to fears that such demolitions are not merely about law enforcement but are driven by a communal agenda.

The judiciary cannot ignore the political messaging that accompanies these demolitions. In several instances, backdated eviction notices have been used to legitimize demolitions after the fact, raising serious concerns about the authenticity and legality of these actions. The celebratory tone adopted by some political leaders in the aftermath of these demolitions further betrays the underlying communal motive, thereby exacerbating communal tensions.

Need for Caution in Laying Down Guidelines:

While the idea of digitalizing eviction notices could curb the practice of backdating, it might not address the core issue of biased enforcement. The Court must grapple with whether the claim that only illegal encroachments are being demolished can truly justify the blatant disregard for the rule of law and due process that has characterized these operations.

The broader implication of the Court’s intervention is its potential to either reinforce or challenge the political narratives that have allowed “bulldozer justice” to thrive. The judiciary must ensure that its guidelines do not inadvertently lend legitimacy to what are essentially extrajudicial punishments. Instead, it should reinforce the principle that legal processes cannot be circumvented under the pretext of administrative efficiency.

A Step in the Right Direction, But More Is Needed:

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of the use of bulldozers as a punitive measure is a crucial step towards restoring faith in the rule of law. However, the effectiveness of this intervention will depend on the robustness of the guidelines it eventually establishes and the willingness of the judiciary to enforce these principles across the board. The challenge lies not just in preventing future abuses but in addressing the injustices that have already occurred under the guise of “bulldozer justice.” The Court’s actions in the coming months will determine whether this intervention is remembered as a turning point or as a missed opportunity in the battle against communal and politically motivated misuse of power.