Bulldozer Justice A Frankenstein Monster That Must Be Reined In Immediately

On November 13, 2024, the Apex Court, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, gave guidelines in compliance with which alone properties can be demolished. Despite the guidelines, bulldozer justice is alive and kicking and being meted out by state governments, more often than not, to teach a lesson to the leader of an arsonist, more often than not, belonging to the minority community, as it happened recently after the Nagpur riots. What emboldens the state governments, especially of the BJP-ruled states, are the two latitudes available in the SC guidelines:

1.    If there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as a road, street, footpath, place abutting a river or waterbody, etc., the authorities need not be detained by the niceties like serving a fortnight notice, etc.  Instead, they can go hammer and tongs straightaway.

2.    Bureaucrats have been warned of dire consequences for not adhering to the guidelines and not the political executive led by the chief minister.

Why has the highest court pulled its punches? Last year, it boldly declared electoral bonds as unconstitutional, and such a declaration hit the political class and the political executive where it hurts. Why, then, this time around didn’t the Court read the riot act to the political executive? No bureaucrat dares to use the bulldozer, except with the leave of the appropriate court, unless the political executive asks him to do so. And should he assert his independence and demur, he is made to face the consequences—punishment posting and even an adverse entry in his records. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have gone for the jugular of the chief minister of the state, given the fact that the buck stops with him. The first latitude is what comes in handy for the political executive to thumb its nose at the guidelines. Here is an anti-social element, a riot leader who has a house. The house itself may be authorized, but it may be, for example, extending into the space meant for the public by a few inches. Most of the house owners fall shy of the perfectionist municipal law. That is seized with alacrity by the political executive. In other words, the political executive is laughing up its sleeves at the two latitudes afforded by the SC guidelines.

Nobody holds a brief for municipal law violators, but razing down their properties has grave implications, as recognised by the SC—it throws lives of their dependents pell-mell. In a typical Indian home, the occupants are the self, spouse, children and elderly parents of the owner. They are caught in the crossfires. School-going children may have to look for different schools. Paying rent till he is acquitted or rehabilitated is an unnecessary imposition on the owner. It may also affect the inter se rights of the legal heirs. To wit, an alleged rioter or criminal may have four properties which he wants to bequeath to each of his four children. And to the dismay of the second child, let us say the second house bequeathed to him is bulldozed. His property rights have been effectively torn asunder.

There are more ominous straws in the wind or vindictive or retaliatory possibilities. What if the Congress governments in Karnataka, Telangana, and Himachal Pradesh or the DMK government in Tamil Nadu or the TMC government in West Bengal were to take a cue and bulldoze the houses of the members of the majority community? It would be a no-holds-barred war harking back to lawless states and countries ruled by despots. One shudders to think of the consequences of such a mindless countrywide strike against properties identified on communal lines. To be sure, the bulldozer justice is, as of now, sporadic, but if it catches the imagination of the opposition, things can spin out of control and reduce India to anarchy. No section of the society should gloat over the high-handedness visited upon another section of the society because tomorrow it may be its turn.

The UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who proudly wears bulldozer justice on his sleeves, minces no words about it being the proverbial thin edge of the wedge to sadistically settle scores or mete out summary justice not known to the Constitution or the legal code of the country. He has gone on record saying people must be taught in the language they use and understand. Touche. If common citizens cannot take the law in their hands, their political masters should not be allowed to dispense summary justice because it amounts to state terrorism, which is worse than the state-sponsored terrorism practised by Pakistan. Earlier, he rationalised encounter killing, another variant of state terrorism, once again to teach die-hard antisocial elements a lesson. Yogi’s heart is in the right place, but his methods are unconstitutional, grossly violent and ruthless.

Democracies and civil societies choose from retributive, restorative or reformative justice. A murder convict is sometimes hanged to death. That is retributive justice meted out in the rarest of rare cases. In financial crimes, restorative justice in the form of impounding the properties of the marauder is appropriate in addition to a jail term. Reformative justice is deemed appropriate for juveniles. But bulldozer justice is the vilest and is sans the approval of jurists and jurisprudence. It has collaterality written all over it. That is why the Apex Court should act with greater urgency and purpose. And BTW what happened to the public interest litigation (PIL) enthusiasts? If there was one single most important situation calling for an urgent PIL hearing, that was against the meting out of bulldozer justice.

Opposition parties too haven’t done enough on this life-and-death matter. This issue merits parliamentary disruption if only to bring the government to its senses. The 1984 pogrom orchestrated by a few Delhi Congress leaders continues to invite revulsion and opprobrium even today, with the BJP rightly championing the cause of the Sikhs at the receiving end of the carnage. Bulldozer justice is of a piece with such carnage, except that the destruction is not of people of a particular community but of their properties.

If the Waqf Bill is a step in the direction of ushering in the Uniform Civil Code as contemplated by the Directive Principles enshrined in the Constitution, bulldozer justice slides atavistically back into discriminatory and high-handed criminal law.

The discussion won’t be complete unless we control rioting, which is followed by bulldozer justice, nay reprisal. If the fear of God is put into rioters, the itch for bulldozer justice would be considerably less. India is not a stranger to satellite technology and its immense use in various walks of life, including beaming television programmes, weather forecasting, including cyclone build-up, and communication. The time has come for the Indian government to use satellites for law enforcement too. It won’t be altogether a novel experiment because in many parts of the USA, traffic regulations are enforced through satellites. India can use satellites and drones to monitor sensitive areas. The former, unlike CCTV, is not susceptible to tinkering or tampering, as it is an eye in the sky, which is amenable to activation for a new limited period reconnoitering only by scientists and technicians wielding the remote control. Those found guilty of rioting by satellite or otherwise should be punished more severely than hitherto. Under the Indian law, rioting (Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code) is punishable with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. If rioting involves deadly weapons, the punishment can extend to five years, or a fine, or both. This is too soft, given the fact that often riots result in mass killings. It should be at least life imprisonment, and for those throwing or stocking deadly weapons, including petrol bombs and bricks that kill people en masse, the punishment can even be death sentence.

S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues