Sravasti Dasgupta 
New Delhi: As the Supreme Court looks to frame pan-India guidelines amid growing concerns over authorities in various states demolishing the homes of individuals accused of crimes as a form of punitive action, or what has come to be known as ‘bulldozer justice’, questions remain that the apex court’s move while welcome has come too late, and whether such guidelines will be enforced at all.
“Action now proposed to be taken by the Supreme Court of framing guidelines is too little and, in one sense, too late,” said Justice Madan B. Lokur, former judge in the Supreme Court.
“The offending officers who don’t believe in or follow the rule of law should have been made accountable long, long ago. Government officers have managed to get away with bulldozer justice, but even now the situation can be remedied if they are made personally accountable.”
On Monday (September 2), a Supreme Court bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the “bulldozer actions” in various states asked the parties to give draft suggestions that can be considered by the court to frame nationwide guidelines, LiveLaw reported.
“Let us try to resolve the issue on pan-India basis,” the court was quoted as saying while posting the matter for hearing after two weeks.
An Amnesty International report in February said that Muslims were targeted in 128 such demolitions that affected 617 people. The Wire has reported on how bulldozers in the Modi decade have come to be seen as a symbol of quick “justice” and collective punishment. From demolitions following communal riots, to forced evictions over allegations of encroachment, “bulldozer justice” has defined justice delivery in the Modi years.
Despite the Supreme Court proposing the need for nationwide guidelines, A.K. Sharma, Uttar Pradesh minister and former bureaucrat with close ties to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, defiantly said just days later that the use of bulldozers is a good thing and will continue.
While proposing to frame guidelines, the Supreme Court bench emphasised that while unauthorised constructions should not be protected, some guidelines are necessary to ensure that demolitions are carried out in accordance with the law. Justice Gavai was quoted by LiveLaw as saying, “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he’s convicted.”
According to former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta, the Supreme Court’s move, while “very welcome, is also coming too late” as bulldozer justice has no place under the Constitution.
Also read: Bulldozers in the Modi Decade: A Symbol of Quick ‘Justice’ and Collective Punishment
“No court can say we will protect illegal constructions. At the same time to demolish illegal constructions there are laws but those laws have been followed in breach rather than in letter or spirit. When the government says that a property is illegal, it cannot be that you override [procedure] and demolish. You have to give notice, you have to give some time to file an appeal, time for the person whose house is proposed to be demolished to prove it is not illegal,” he said.
A report titled Forced Evictions in India 2022-2023 released by Housing and Land Rights Network in March noted that in these two years, over 1.5 lakh homes were demolished, evicting more than 7.4 lakh persons across the country.
Anita Agnihotri, who has served as secretary in both the Union ministry of social justice and empowerment and the Union ministry of housing and urban poverty alleviation, said that guidelines are already in place for demolitions of property under law that are illegally constructed or which may be encroachments. In 2022, Agnihotri was also part of a group of 90 civil servants who had written to then-Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana urging the apex court to take suo-moto cognisance of the bulldozer action in Uttar Pradesh following protests against alleged insulting remarks made by the Bharatiya Janata Party spokespersons on Prophet Muhammad.
“Since this has been happening for a long time, the Supreme Court’s words are welcome. But what is more clear to me on the framing of the guidelines is that these two things are separate. First, if you want to take legal action against anyone for any offence committed under law, that has to continue under law. Second, if that same person has violated guidelines of the municipal corporation or any urban or local body and his house has to be demolished, there is a laid down procedure for it. Connecting these two things which have been happening is highly violative of Rule of Law,” she said.
Enforcing guidelines
Just this month, a Muslim auto driver’s house in Rajasthan’s Udaipur was bulldozed after his tenant’s minor son fatally stabbed his classmate in school, while in Madhya Pradesh’s Chhatarpur, former Congress district vice president Haji Shahzad Ali’s house was bulldozed after he allegedly led a mob that pelted stones at a police station.
With the Supreme Court now proposing guidelines against such demolitions, questions remain about whether such guidelines will be followed at all.
“No special law is necessary. The problem is that government officers do not follow the existing law,” said Lokur.
“How can they be allowed to get away with it? If a structure is illegal, demolish it, but only after following the procedure laid down by law. What is the guarantee that the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court will be followed? If they are not followed, what will happen? If the officers are to be punished, why can’t they be punished now? There should be only two guidelines – one, follow the law, otherwise face consequences. Two, nobody can act with impunity, not even senior government officers.”
First seen in Uttar Pradesh under chief minister Yogi Adityanath, who has been called “bulldozer baba”, it has since spread to Madhya Pradesh, where former chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan came to be referred to as “bulldozer mama”. Similar drives have also been seen in Delhi, Haryana, Assam, Uttarakhand and Mumbai. The bulldozer has found pride of place in election rallies and been trumpeted by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders.
Just two days after the Supreme Court came down heavily against the demolition of property of those accused of crimes, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath stated, “Not everyone’s hands can fit on a bulldozer.”
Adityanath’s response came in an apparent response to former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and now Kannauj MP Akhilesh Yadav said that if the Samajwadi Party forms the government in Uttar Pradesh in 2027, all the bulldozers in the state would be directed towards Gorakhpur – Adityanath’s bastion.
‘Restoring constitutionality’
According to Agnihotri, there is no need for separate guidelines as there are already existing laws that deal with such demolitions and the issue lies elsewhere.
“We are looking at the judiciary for the restoration of constitutionality which itself is concerning for our democracy,” she said.
“There is blatant violation of rule of law in states where minority communities are being targeted. There is a lot of joy in the ruling party government in a state playing to the gallery. Common people get agitated over assault of women and say there should be encounters or hanging, similarly breaking somebody’s house is the ultimate exercise of force by the state.
“But however nice it may sound or visually cater to the emotions of people, it has to be clearly understood that this is not the rule of law and if rule of law is sacrificed today, it is the common people and poor people who suffer the most, whichever community they belong to. The problem is that it is continuing and state action is biased to establish majoritarianism, which is not healthy for democracy,” Agnihotri added.
While state laws including in Rajasthan, Haryana, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh do allow demolitions under specific conditions, they must follow due process-an essential facet that has often been ignored in recent bulldozer actions.
In a statement, former Union minister for law and justice Ashwini Upadhyay said that the apex court’s words must now be taken to its logical conclusion.
“The apex court’s reprimand must now be taken to its logical conclusion by ensuring a fool proof mechanism for effective implementation of the guidelines against bulldozing proposed by the court. The point of principle underscored by the court concerns the foundational value of the Republic namely, that justice is to be dispensed according to law and by observing legal processes. Justice according to law cannot be an act of retribution at the whim of executive authorities,” he said.