Putting the brakes on ‘bulldozer justice’ Premium

While the demolitions carried out across India reflect varied patterns, the thread in all such instances is the lack of due process and blatant disregard for directives issued by the judiciary

The Supreme Court of India has invited suggestions from the parties concerned to frame appropriate pan-India guidelines on extra-legal demolitions. The order comes in the wake of multiple instances of demolitions where the houses and building establishments of persons accused of certain crimes have been razed without following due process. These demolitions have become commonplace over the last few years, targeting vulnerable groups and often leaving them without any legal recourse.

This selective, yet arbitrary, state action has rendered the right to housing meaningless since evictions are brazenly carried out by local authorities, often at odd hours, without any alternative facility or engagement for rehabilitation. The inequality, social conflict and segregation that follow such action run the risk of intensifying the marginalisation of certain communities and go against the spirit of the Constitution and due process enshrined in criminal procedure laws.

In light of overarching principles of human rights, constitutional values and social justice, there is a strong need to formulate guidelines and re-imagine the existing legal framework which bestows unbridled executive power on municipal authorities to order and execute such demolitions.

Large-scale demolition drives as a means of collective punishment for rioters are becoming rampant. What started with bulldozer action in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri has now spilled over to different parts of the country. The violence that ensued in Nuh, Haryana, due to a clash between two religious groups in 2023, ended with the local administration demolishing a number of homes in the neighbourhood.

Communal riots in Madhya Pradesh’s Khargone also resulted in the demolition of houses and businesses owned by Muslims who were deemed to be ‘alleged rioters’. Quick instinctive action against those perceived to be at odds with the law has emerged as a dangerous pattern of state-driven oppression. In each of these cases, the demolition is justified under municipal laws either on account of action against encroachment or under the pretext of unauthorised construction. The due process envisaged under various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including Sudama Singh & Ors. vs Government of Delhi and Ajay Maken & Ors vs Union of India are completely bypassed.

This ‘tough on crime’ or ‘eye for an eye’ approach has escalated to become a political brand for several State governments. Treating demolitions as a fair response to the destruction of public infrastructure undermines existing processes envisaged under criminal laws and constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights. In the course of devising guidelines for such extra-legal demolitions, the Supreme Court must impose a complete moratorium on the punitive demolition of establishments. In other legitimate instances of demolition, the guidelines should prescribe a strict tripartite procedure to ensure that those at the receiving end are not rendered helpless without any recourse.

The issue of displacement of persons for varied reasons has for long been a cause of concern. While the United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on Development-based Evictions and Displacement, 2019, prescribe directives to address this issue from a humanitarian perspective, multiple court cases in the higher judiciary have dealt with demolition issues in a piecemeal manner over the years. Albeit helpful, these scattered efforts to address the issue have culminated in a myopic view of the problem, leading to temporary solutions. The current task of the Supreme Court — i.e., formulating pan-India guidelines — must look at the issue through a multidimensional lens.