BULLDOZER JUSTICE: CHECKING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY

AUTHOR: DIKSHA SONI, CHHAJU RAM LAW COLLEGE, GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT

The discussion in this article is about the increasing cases of government authorities demolishing the alleged illegal properties of rioters, stone pelters, minorities and crime accused. This demolition of properties is somehow popular in the media and also named as’ Bulldozer Justice’. The main motive of bulldozer justice is to boost the justice system and punish the alleged criminals by devastating their properties. This type of politics was initially introduced by U.P. Chief minister, Yogi Adityanath of the BJP. According to him, the seized and bulldozed illegal properties will be replaced by new houses for the Dalits and poor people or any needy ones. Those who are the supporters of this bulldozer justice argue that this system will help people to get instant justice and will also prevent people from being involved in any criminal activities. These people oppose the slow process of justice established under law. But, if we see the critics, some people or politicians argue that this is not constitutional. Firstly, the alleged criminal is not yet declared accused and also if proven guilty, the family members of the accused will also have to suffer with him and their fundamental rights will also be violated. So, according to Indian law, no innocent should be punished, even if hundreds of criminals go free. Critics also say that this kind of system is the very first step towards an authoritarian society. This article will check the constitutionality of this system and also discuss various cases and judicial principles with the rule of law.

KEYWORDS

Bulldozer justice; instant justice; demolitions; fundamental rights; judicial principles; rule of law; pan-India guidelines.

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, many instances have occurred in which shows the houses and buildings of a person accused of certain crimes have been razed without following the legal process. The media termed it as ‘Bulldozer Justice’. A little while back, the Supreme court of India has laid down Pan-India guidelines on bulldozer actions. Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, said that law does not permit anyone’s house to be demolished only on the basis that that person is accused in any crime and also can’t happen in the case of convict, as there are no such provisions in law which mandates razing off the properties of criminals. The importance of writing this article is to check whether socially, morally or legally the so-called ‘instant justice’ is right or not. We will see why there is such a need to start a system like bulldozer justice in India. We will discuss whether or not this is constitutional. Let’s see some of the main points. 

1. Justice:

   Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and it also includes the right of protection against arbitrary and excessive punitive actions. Which is understood, that the demolition of the property without the due process violates article 21.

   Article 14 describes the rule of law, which is a fundamental principle of the Indian constitution that says the state should respect individuals' rights with the established law. The misuse of legal power for over control and suppression erodes the rule of law.

   
   

2. India’s justice modal – restorative not retributive:

   The Indian criminal justice system has a restorative approach towards a crime not a retributive one. The earlier justice system in India, we had an eye to eye system, that is tit-for-tat, which is a retributive approach. But time flies and the judicial system shifts towards the restorative approach, which focuses on reforming the criminal not to punish them as brutally as their crime. In some of the instances we have seen the government demolishing the property of the accused which is a retributive approach or tit-for-tat approach, which has become a political brand for several state governments. And the same restorative approach is not applied.

   
   

3. Innocent until proven guilty: 

   This is the legal principle under Indian law which means a person accused of any crime is deemed to be innocent until proven guilty. So, in the present scenario, by disposing off the property of the accused without the due process, is injustice.

   
   

4. Audi alteram partem:

   This is the Latin phrase which means ‘let the other side be heard’ or ‘listen to the other side’. It is a fundamental legal principle; which says judgement can’t be made without legal arguments between both the parties. The same is violated by razing the properties of accused, those were punished before any legal proceedings by the government.

ISSUES

‘Bulldozer justice’, the word ‘bulldozer’ itself speaks about the destruction of something, and ‘justice’ which means to be fair or to be impartial. But these words are put together which is contradictory in itself. As it is very clear that bulldozers or JCB’s are used to demolish the properties of those, who have not been proven guilty of any crime. There is no legal provision provided to raze the property neither of any alleged accused nor the convicted one. Also, it is somehow unfair to the members of that accused, why those people, who haven’t done anything wrong are being punished.

The main problem is this, with the violation of fundamental rights of the accused many other persons rights are also being violated. Now some of the issues will be discussed below:

1. Minority is being targeted: Such actions are taking towards the marginalized and specific community, which is against the constitutional spirit. It was found that muslim localities were selected as the area of demolition, while muslim owned properties were selectively targeted. Where else Hindu owned properties were left untouched. Targeting a specific community and destroying their properties is not justice in a country like India, which is a diversified nation and a democratic one. This violates their right to equality and right to life and also the rule of law is being violated. Running bulldozers on the laws of land, such actions can’t be ignored. – Supreme court said

2. Violation of right to property: This is not the fundamental right in India, but a legal right. Which says, anyone can use a property in a particular way. But also, it states that, State can acquire the property for public purpose but have to follow certain procedures to do so, which includes: -

   Right to notice: the state must inform the owner of that property.

   Right to be heard: state must hear if there is any objection to the acquisition.

   Right to fair compensation: the state must have to compensate the owner of that property.

If we see all these procedures, and link it with the present scenario, none of the procedures or rules are being followed. Neither the state giving notice to the owner of that property nor the reasonable time. 

State is also not hearing any objection or the views of those people, which is the next procedure which is not followed.

If we talk about the compensation, the state is not giving anything in return. Just forget about the monetary compensation, the state is not even giving them any place to live. According to data collected in 2022-23 by Housing and Land Rights Network 7,38,438 people are homeless, and this number is drastically increasing year by year. This is the other procedure which is left to be followed.

3. Rule of law: Supreme court highlights that demolishing the properties depending on the allegation on a person and punitive action of the government against the family members of the person is not according to the rule of law.

RECENT CASES

On 19 June 2024, an anti-encroachment drive was conducted in Akbar Nagar by the Lucknow’s Development Authority. This drive was to reclaim the river bank of the kukrail river and improve the water quality. Central government demolished nearly 1169 houses, 101 commercial spaces which resulted in demolition of almost 1800 structures. Later the government says that the area was encroached upon by Rohingya and Bangladeshi infiltrators and land mafias.

On 11 April 2022, many shops and houses were demolished as a part of ‘anti-encroachment drive’ in Khargone, Madhya Pradesh. This demolition was carried out not only because the properties were illegal but also it was seen as the punishment for those who were alleged to be stone pelters and were involved in communal violence on Ram Navami. Those whose properties were bulldozed belonged to the minority community. 

According to Frontline, the Brihan-Mumbai Municipal Corporation demolished around 600 makeshift settlements in Jai Bhim Nagar, a Dalit Basti (settlement) in Mumbai’s Powai, leaving 3500 people homeless. The demolished site is now a rubble sheet, and remains inaccessible to residents, who are forced to live on footpaths. 

In the case of Prayagraj clashes the key accused, Mohammad Javed’ home was seen demolished, who has been identified as the main accused in the conspiracy behind the clashes. The PDA (Prayagraj Development Authority) has passed the notice on the gate of Javed’s house informing the people to empty the property. The notice pasted says that, the property has illegal structure which is constructed without required permissions, PDA also claims that, Javed failed to respond the notice and had not emptied the place.   

Nuh, a small and poor town in northern state of Haryana, has faced hundreds of demolitions of homes and shops. Many of the destroyed buildings belonged to muslim. This demolition started when Nuh’s muslims residents started pelting stones on the Hindu group who were passing through town during their religious activity. Many people were injured and six were killed. 

METHODOLOGY

I have conducted doctoral research. 

Doctrinal research is mainly legal research which is collectively issued by courts of India and the legislature. In the present scenario, many people face the loss of their properties, violation of human rights and fundamental rights, and also the demolition of properties can be seen as extra-judicial punishments which are harsh in nature.

RESULTS

If we see the consequences of this extra judicial punishment, many people become homeless and also the breach of human rights. We have seen the inequality in giving this punishment, as minorities are being targeted. Muslim owned properties were the main target of the demolition, while Hindu owned properties were not touched. Bulldozers have not only become a common scheme to demolish the Muslims, but bulldozers develop as Hindu – Nationalist symbols. As a result, the supreme court put a step forward to examine the suggestion for Pan-India guidelines.

DISCUSSION

As we have seen all the facts and checked the constitutionality of the said ‘instant justice system’, which is not up to mark. According to my view, the government is more focused on emptying the place as for their development plan. Government has specifically targeted the minority community and whosoever is being accused for any crime their properties or buildings are being demolished. Demolishing on such a large scale which is making thousands of people homeless is inhuman. Our justice system is restorative not retributive, our system focuses on improving the criminal not to punish them harshly. Retributive theory is the tit-for-tat theory, which says the criminal should be punished as according to his act done, but in restorative theory it focuses to reform the evil spirit of the criminal. In India, both the parties are given equal chance to present themselves in the legal proceedings, the principle of ‘Audi alteram partem’ says let the other side be heard. This principle is properly violated in the present scenario. According to me providing instant justice is not bad, it is good it will boost the system of providing justice. In present India, there are many cases pending in our respective courts. We still need to be efficient in providing justice to our people. But providing instant justice can also be done by legal means, there is no need to break the laws and violate the fundamental rights of the people of India. 

There should be a procedure for such actions to be taken:

• Firstly, there should be a reasoned notice for demolition i.e. why the property is to be demolished. Giving appropriate time to the owner and giving reasonable reason.

• Secondly, the state should make an independent committee which includes the judicial and civil society.

• Thirdly, the committee should discuss compensation and provide living to the owner.

• If the property is being illegal, then the committee should take care of the vulnerable people like the elderly, children and women.

• The owner of that property should be granted with appropriate time duration to vacate the house, and the forceful actions should be avoided by the members. 

• Any person accused of any crime should not be punished like this, there is a judiciary for giving justice, the government should not intervene in the work of the judiciary by punishing criminals like this. 

  
  

In many states of India and especially North India (Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and also Madhya Pradesh), we have seen several instances of bulldozers, bulldozing the land of law. The land which is known as the world’s largest Democracy and where people of every religion can live peacefully, is now being targeted.

But also, people whose property has been disposed of, we have seen their involvement in any of the riots, clashes, stone pelting, violence on the religious place of others. Is the government really biased? Are the people involved in the criminal conspiracy only Muslims? 

But at present, Supreme court intervention is very important; in the ongoing scenario of the punitive punishment by destroying of the properties, the supreme court should impose temporary suspension on this activity and impose proper guidelines which must to be followed by the states in India.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of India has opposed the practice of ‘Bulldozer Justice’. As this practice is unconstitutional and also violates rule of law, the Pan-India guidelines for bulldozer justice established by the Supreme Court can be a positive move. The arbitrary exercise of power by the state without following the legal procedure should be stopped, as this would lead to a threat to the system in the democratic nation. The violation of fundamental rights and human rights by giving such kind of extra judicial punishment should be stopped. Instant justice can also be achieved by following the procedures of law not by such unconstitutional means.