Supreme Court's stance on "Bulldozer Justice" becomes tougher

Dispensing "justice" through bulldozers will no longer be easy. The Supreme Court has made it clear that in cases of crime or riots, the state government or police actions to demolish the house of a suspected criminal will not be tolerated. A division bench comprising Justice Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, while hearing several petitions on Monday, termed the incidents of demolishing the houses of the accused or their parents as unfair and a disservice to the administration of justice.

The bench stated that convicting someone before they have been convicted by the court is a direct violation of the Constitution and the law. The judges also mentioned that they would prepare comprehensive guidelines to stop this malpractice, which will be applicable across the entire country. They sought suggestions from the Solicitor General of India and other legal experts, emphasizing that the entire procedure should be more judicial and humane.

The practice of demolishing the house or business of an accused in major or heinous crimes has been in place since British rule. Some legal provisions exist in statutory codes, but such steps were rarely implemented until five years ago when the Yogi Adityanath government in Uttar Pradesh began to regularize them. Initially, this was effective in curbing crime, and Yogi’s reputation as a strict administrator was established. Other BJP-led states, including Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Maharashtra, adopted "bulldozer justice" as an effective measure. Even Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, then governed by Congress, were not left behind. However, this practice soon took on a communal color, with the Muslim community becoming its main target.

During the 2020-21 CAA protests in Delhi, bulldozers were openly used against the Muslim community. It was inevitable that this matter would reach the Supreme Court. A hearing was held in 2022 on petitions filed by Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, other organizations, and individual victims. The judges requested affidavits and assurances from the authorities. Unfortunately, despite the case being in the Supreme Court, "bulldozer justice" not only continued but also intensified. Perhaps this is why the division bench has now taken a stricter stance.

Governments, local administrations, or police should not have the right to violate legal procedures in the name of preventing lawlessness or disorder. Bulldozers should be used on illegal encroachments or constructions, but without any religious discrimination. The law's wrath should be directed at the criminals, not their siblings or parents.

Most affidavits filed in the Supreme Court indicate that the victims of government or police actions were usually the parents or relatives of the suspected accused. A case from Indore is particularly noteworthy, where, despite a ban by the Supreme Court, the local administration demolished the house of a suspected accused, claiming they had not yet received the court's order in writing.

The Supreme Court's sensitivity on this issue should influence state governments and local administrations. The law should target criminals, not innocent bystanders.