AUTHOR: Aakash Saini, Quantum University, Roorkee
INTRODUCTION
In the recent past, this phrase has become very popular throughout the territory of India. Here people do not have the reputation of the authorities using bulldozers as a tool of justice conducting illegal Construction especially during riots. What is grave here is the concern as to if this remedy is being biased to the minority groups in India, thereby denying them their constitutional right of liberals as given into the constitution.
Equality Before Law: Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
Even the constitution of India has enshrined respect for freedom in all the three organs of the Indian Polity along with article 14 the equality before the Supreme Law. It states: “Equality before the law, or the equal protection of the laws, within the territory of India is forbidden by the State”. However, with this provision in place, few minorities such as those in India for instance, accuse the government of targeting them by conducting “bulldozer” demolitions. Far such supposition of selective enforcement has called tagging of those government actions as unreasonable and prejudicial.
The Indian Supreme Court discussed Article 14 in detail, and ruled that rule of law is a part of the Indian Constitution, in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. There could never be an element of arbitrariness in any governmental actions, Supreme Court Justice P.N. Bhagwati said, and if there is, then that particular action can be considered Illegal. The lawsuit led to the setting of a legal rule where the state has no right to prejudice or in any way give preferential treatment to any person.
Article 15: Non-Discrimination
Article 15(1) of the Constitution adds to the section that deals with anti-discrimination. The statement states that "The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the basis of any of the following only: origin of creed, color, caste or sex or country of birth.” According to political debates and newspapers, the recent demolition wave has affected the Muslims mainly. This has led to opine that the government is employing ‘Bulldozer Justice’ in order to subjugate the Muslim community. The government of this country cannot discriminate against any of its citizens based on caste or religion alone hence if these allegations are true then this would grossly violate Article 15(1).
Article 21: The Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Article 21 that provides “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law” is another part of the Indian Constitution. Case laws like the one in the Maneka Gandhi v in 1978 Union of India, strengthens this privilege the Supreme Court opined that a procedure that extinguishes a citizen’s life or liberty must be ‘right, just and fair.’ It can neither be oppressive nor arbitrary.
Whether such demolitions conducted by the government of UP and other states have infringed Article 21 of the Constitution is the novelty in this position. In Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. In North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others, the Supreme Court was able to hear a prayer to stay demolition that takes place in Uttar Pradesh without due process. The Court also made it clear that it is unlawful to carry out arbitrary demolition exercises and that it has to align to law.
Demolition and Due Process
It is not unlawful for the government to demolish constructions that are unlawful but these acts must be done in a legal manner. According to Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the owner and the occupier of an unauthorized structure must be informed before it can be demolished. The notification period usually varies from 5 to 15 days within which the person may reply to the ruling or challenge it.
The Delhi High Court while making the law clear pointed out in Bal Kishan Das v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2010) it is becoming very important to provide show cause notice before the demolition of any property. The Court reasoned that the demolition is unlawful in case the above mentioned notice has not been served. Similar rulings have also been made by the Supreme Court and the same court has also offered a clear indication of continuing to uphold the need to give the affected party an opportunity to be heard and better notice.
Selective Enforcement and Allegations of Bias
Some of the problems with the method are as follows: The claim that “Bulldozer Justice” discriminates against Muslims is maybe the biggest flaw of the approach. Advocate CU Singh said that the demolitions in Prayagraj and Kanpur violated the municipal law ordinances that provide for 15 days’ notice period as in the recent apex court case stated above. Further, he stated that by undertaking the demolitions, the respondents acted in complete disregard of natural justice and equity because they were part of a grand design to wipe out the minority group.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Harish Salve for UP government contended that notices have been given from sufficient time and the demolitions were legal. The Supreme Court emphasized that no demolition could take place without following legal procedures when, at the same time, it asked the state to file an affidavit on its actions.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, fairness and transparency are essential. Municipal authorities do have demolition powers and when they employ them, they should do so in an absolutely transparent and fair manner. While illegal structures often require attention, the government cannot just point the finger at a community. The rule of law enshrined in the Indian Constitution can never be violated. Whenever states commit procedural unfairness that denies individuals their part or rendition appears discriminative, then, those doing it are not simply breaking the law, but are threatening democracy itself.
The end of this case will leave profound consequences on the Indian concepts of justice, thus equality, and fairness as the Supreme Court goes on to evaluate the Uttar Pradesh government.
Related Posts
