Bulldozer justice is antithesis of rule of law

Aristotle did not agree with Plato that 'better men' are better than 'best laws' and went on to assert that 'every citizen is under law including rulers.' Cicero famously said that 'we are all servants of law in order that we may be free.' Magna Carta (1215) was the spiritual ancestor of 'rule of law'. John Adams remarked about the Massachusetts Constitution (1780) that it was intended to have a 'government of laws not men.'

'Rule of law' is another name of government by laws. 'Rule of law' has rightly been held to be the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. It is, indeed, unqualified human good.

Bulldozer justice became the buzz word in Uttar Pradesh in 2017, with Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath being affectionately called ‘Bulldozer Baba’. A number of houses were demolished in different cities. For mere participation in the CAA protests, houses were demolished. Journalist Javed Muhammad's house was demolished in Prayagraj for participating in the protest against the blasphemous statement of Nupur Sharma, though it was owned by his wife. Last month, after violence in Bahraich, the house of an accused was demolished with God speed. Akbarpur in Lucknow saw hundreds of demolitions.

In Madhya Pradesh, the then Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, who had an image of a moderate, loving maternal uncle, suddenly started invoking bulldozer justice. He soon earned the title of ‘Bulldozer mama’.

In Assam, a number of madarsas were razed to the ground on allegations against some teachers’ involvement in terror activities.

Hyderabad recently witnessed mass demolitions due to the Musi River front development project.

Several petitions were filed in the apex court under Article 32 praying for the issuance of directions against the abuse of executive powers. On September 17, 2024, the court ordered a stay on demolitions not just in UP but across India. Former CJI DY Chandrachud, in another matter in the last week of his tenure, came down heavily on the whole concept of bulldozer justice and awarded

Rs 25 lakh compensation.

After the demolition of 1,50,000 houses that rendered 7,38,000 people homeless — a majority of them Muslims and from marginalised communities — a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice BR Gavai, in a landmark 99-page judgment, has finally found bulldozer justice as antithetical to rule of law as well as separation of powers. The court, invoking extraordinary powers of the apex court under Article 142, has laid down detailed mandatory guidelines for the state officials. The right to shelter has been emphasised as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.

The Bench admitted that the house gives a sense of dignity and a sense of belonging. It observed that innocent family members cannot be penalised through bulldozer justice.

Justice Gavai rightly observed that rule of law is the fundamental principle of governance of any civilised liberal democracy. Justice Gavai quoted with approval Justice KK Mathew’s observations in Indira Nehru Gandhi (1976) that "I cannot conceive of rule of law as a twinkling star up above the Constitution. To be a basic structure, it must be a terrestrial concept having its habitat within the four corners of the Constitution."

Justifying the court's intervention in bringing to an end the unfortunate and illegal saga of bulldozer justice, Justice Gavai also quoted the Bilkis Yakub Rasool judgment (2024) where the court had held in categorical terms that "rule of law means wherever and whenever the state fails to perform its duties, the court would step in to ensure that rule of law prevails over the abuse of process of law."

Rule of law is basically aimed at reining in the arbitrary exercise of state power.

The court clarified that not only the accused but even the convicts do have certain fundamental rights and state officials cannot arbitrarily demolish their homes. The court recalled the first principles of our criminal justice system, ie presumption of innocence; fair trial; due process; judicial rather than executive determination of guilt, etc.

Justice Gavai also flagged the issue of mala fide intentions in demolishing some structures, with similarly situated structures in the same vicinity not being touched at all. In such cases, the authorities now have to prove that they were acting bona fide without any intention to penalise a particular individual or group. The court explicitly declared that the executive cannot become judge and decide that a person is guilty and punish him by demolishing his residential or commercial properties. In a strongly-worded indictment, Justice Gavai termed such 'a state as lawless state', with might is right being the rule.

The court has laid down mandatory guidelines that must be followed prior to any demolition, ie proper and adequate notice of 15 days, with a copy to the collector to be sent by registered post as well as affixed conspicuously on the building; the notice must give details of the nature of unauthorised construction; specific violations; grounds of demolition; the list of documents the noticee is required to furnish in his reply and the date of personal hearing.

The final order, too, must be a speaking order, with contentions of the noticee and authorities’ specific acceptance or rejection of the same; how far the unauthorised construction is compoundable and why the extreme step of demolition is the only option. Another 15 days are to be given to file an appeal, with an opportunity for self-demolition of the unauthorised portion. Videography is to be done of every demolition and the recording be sent to the municipal commissioner.

But these guidelines are not applicable to demolitions on roads, footpaths and illegal constructions near railway lines.

For non-compliance of these guidelines, state officials would be prosecuted for contempt of court, personally bear the cost of restitution of the illegally demolished houses and pay compensation.

In fact, it is wrong to use the term bulldozer justice, the correct expression is bulldozer injustice. The selective public outrage on such an injustice, depending upon the religion or class or caste of the victims of demolitions, has been deeply painful as it is demonstrative of our lack of compassion and loss of 'sense of injustice'. Forget about the realisation of the constitutional goal of justice — social, economic and political — many of us no more feel bad about injustices around us.