Introduction
On November 13, 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan delivered a significant judgment that criticized the practice of “bulldozer justice” in cases of illegal demolitions. This decision raised serious concerns over the state government’s practice of demolishing properties of individuals involved in crimes as a form of punishment. This judgment is being seen as historic, marking an important step in the protection of fundamental rights of citizens.

Bulldozer Justice: A Controversial Practice

In India, "bulldozer justice" has become a widely discussed and controversial practice, where authorities demolish the properties of individuals involved in crimes, including illegal constructions or properties linked to criminal activities, using bulldozers and heavy machinery. Often, these actions are taken without following legal procedures or obtaining judicial orders.

Background of the Case: Tibrewal Akash Case

This practice came under scrutiny in 2019, after the demolition of journalist Manoj Tibrewal Akash’s ancestral property in Uttar Pradesh. Authorities claimed it was done for the expansion of a national highway, but the court found multiple violations in the process. Officials demolished the property without issuing a written notice and exceeded the prescribed boundary. Actually this action was taken on the issues of Tibrewal’s father's demand for an investigation into irregularities in the road project, leading many to view it as an act of retaliation.

NHRC (National Human Rights Commission) Report

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) reported that excessive action had been taken in this demolition. According to the Commission, where there was an encroachment of only 3.7 meters, authorities demolished a space between 5 and 8 meters.

Arguments in Favor of Bulldozer Justice

Supporters view bulldozer justice as a means to control crime and maintain law and order in society, arguing:

• Crime Deterrence: Proponents believe demolishing illegal constructions or properties linked to crimes can help curb criminal activities. They argue it sends a strong message to others about the consequences of breaking the law.
• Quick Action: Some see it as a quick and effective way to remove illegal structures. Judicial procedures in such cases can be lengthy, whereas swift action is often necessary.
• Public Sentiment and Sense of Justice: Another argument is that bulldozer justice instills public confidence in a strong and immediate justice system, especially in cases where judicial procedures are time-consuming and offenders often escape punishment.
• Strict Action by the State: Some believe it represents a firm and timely step by the government to curb criminals and unlawful activities. They argue it can quickly curb corruption and other social ills and create a sense of fear among wrongdoers.
• Quick Removal of Illegal Constructions: Supporters also argue that it is essential to act against encroachments and illegal constructions in cities and metropolitan areas. This kind of action can ensure proper land use and prevent urban disorganization, as well as ensure public safety by demolishing illegal buildings.

Supreme Court’s Decision: Key Points

The court clarified that illegal demolitions may be wrongful actions by the state, violating citizens’ property rights. It mandated that legal procedures must be followed before any demolition. In its decision, the Supreme Court raised several critical points against illegal demolitions and outlined six key steps that must be taken before demolishing any property:

1.    Verification of land records and maps

2.    Proper surveying of encroachments

3.    Issuance of a written notice to encroachers

4.    Conducting hearings and issuing orders

5.    Allowing adequate time for voluntary removal

6.    Legal acquisition of additional land, if necessary

Supreme Court’s View: Criticism of ‘Bulldozer Justice’

In this judgment, the Supreme Court reviewed several fundamental legal principles and raised serious concerns against bulldozer justice, as follows:

• Rule of Law: The court emphasized that even the state must adhere to the law. Demolishing someone’s property without legal procedure violates the principles of democracy and justice. Failure to adhere to this would undermine public trust in constitutional institutions.
• Presumption of Innocence: The court stated that demolishing a person’s property without convicting them violates the presumption of innocence.
• Right to Shelter: The court clarified that the right to housing is part of human dignity, and no one can be deprived of this right without due legal process. This right is part of the fundamental rights under Article 21.
• Misuse of Power: The court observed that in some cases, bulldozer justice may represent an abuse of power, where discriminatory actions are taken against specific individuals or communities, potentially fostering feelings of isolation within affected communities.
• Creation of Fear in Society: The court remarked that such swift actions could create an atmosphere of fear and insecurity in society, weakening the sense of justice.
• Avoiding Delays in Justice: While the court acknowledged the issue of delays in the judicial process, it also suggested improving and accelerating judicial processes rather than resorting to bulldozer justice.
• Lack of Evidence and Proof: The court also noted that in cases of illegal demolitions, it is crucial that authorities have appropriate evidence and proof, and any action taken without such evidence should be prohibited.

Way Forward

This decision by the Supreme Court is a significant step in the Indian judicial system, standing against the rising influence of “bulldozer justice.” It is a vital principle for the protection of justice, the Constitution, and civil rights. Through this judgment, the court has made it clear that no action by the state can go against judicial processes and legal rights.

• Corrective Oversight: The Supreme Court recommended establishing an independent oversight mechanism for demolition actions to ensure no officer can act outside the law.
• Legal Reforms: The court also suggested that legal reforms are necessary to protect citizens from illegal actions by the state and ensure adherence to legal procedures.

Key Takeaways for UPSC Aspirants

1.    Issue of Bulldozer Justice: This practice involves the demolition of properties linked to crimes or criminals without judicial orders and due process, often leading to misuse of power.

2.    Supreme Court’s Decision: On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court criticized the practice of illegal demolitions, deeming it a violation of the Constitution and citizens’ rights.

3.    Adherence to Legal Procedure: The court clarified that before any demolition, legal processes such as issuing notices, holding hearings, and allowing adequate time must be followed.

4.    Arguments Against Bulldozer Justice: The court suggested improving judicial processes to avoid delays in justice, rather than demolishing property without due legal basis.

5.    Corrective Oversight and Legal Reforms: The court emphasized the need for an independent oversight mechanism and legal reforms to protect citizens from illegal state actions.