What's New

Democracy By Force: A Reassessment of Bulldozer Politics

Syllabus:

GS-2:

Judiciary , Judgements & Cases ,Government Policies & Interventions

Focus:

The Supreme Court’s ruling against the use of bulldozers for demolitions highlights growing concerns over governance tactics that undermine democracy. It underscores the threat of authoritarian practices, where legal procedures are bypassed in favour of strong-arm tactics, raising alarms about the erosion of democratic norms.

Supreme Court Ruling on Bulldozer Justice:

• The Supreme Court’s verdict against “bulldozer justice” highlights the misuse of state machinery for political agendas.
• The issue stems from a broader culture of strong-arm tactics in governance.
• Such actions bypass minimal democratic norms and often require judicial intervention, reflecting systemic failures.

Political mileage gained from extrajudicial actions, like encounters, further undermines the rule of law.

What is Bulldozer Justice?

• Definition: Bulldozer Justice refers to the practice in India where authorities use bulldozers and heavy machinery to demolish properties of individuals accused of serious crimes like communal violence, murder, and rape.
• Controversy: This action is often carried out without following proper legal procedures, bypassing due process in property demolition.

Recent History of Bulldozer Justice

• Uttar Pradesh (2017-Present): Frequent use of bulldozers against properties of individuals
• involved in crimes, such as Vikas Dubey and Atiq Ahmed.
• Madhya Pradesh (2022): Demolition of 16 houses and 29 shops in Khargone after communal clashes.
• Haryana (2022): Bulldozer action in Nuh following communal violence.
• Maharashtra (2020): Demolition of part of Kangana Ranaut’s bungalow after her controversial comments.
• Delhi (2022): Bulldozer action in Jahangirpuri, following communal clashes.

Supreme Court Observations on Demolitions:

• Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978)
• SC ruled that executive procedures must be fair, just, and reasonable in all actions, including demolitions.
• Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana vs Inderjit Singh (2008)
• SC held that demolition of illegal constructions cannot proceed without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
• SC emphasised the need for due process in evictions, stating eviction without notice violates the right to livelihood under Article 21.
• Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Intervention (Nuh)
• The court intervened in Nuh demolitions, citing lack of due process and potential ethnic targeting.

About Article 142 of the Constitution:

• Empowerment for Complete Justice:
• Grants the Supreme Court power to pass decrees and orders for complete justice in any case.
• Article 142(1):
• Allows the Court to issue binding orders across India, enforceable by law or President’s directive.
• Article 142(2):
• Empowers the Court to secure attendance, ensure document discovery, or punish contempt.
• Use Over Time:
• Has been used to fill legislative gaps and ensure effective justice.

Key Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court:

• Notice Requirements:
  • Advance Notice: Authorities must give at least 15 days’ notice before demolition.
  • Content of Notice: Must include reasons for demolition, description of the structure, and a hearing date.
  • Communication with Officials: Authorities must inform local officials and get acknowledgment to avoid backdating allegations.
• Hearing and Final Order:
  • Recorded Hearing: Authorities must hold a hearing and document the proceedings.
  • Final Order: Should justify demolition and specify which parts of the property will be demolished.
• Post-Order Implementation:
  • Waiting Period: A 15-day waiting period to allow the owner to challenge the order or remove the construction.
  • Documentation: Demolition must be recorded with video and an inspection report.

The Symbolism of the Bulldozer:

• Bulldozers are more than physical tools; they represent ideological and procedural violations in democracy.
• A statism-focused approach prioritises state interests over citizen rights.
• Legislative and judicial complicity often legitimises these practices under the guise of democracy.
• Strong-arm governance reflects an erosion of democratic values like negotiation, compromise, and procedural norms.

Misinterpretations of Democracy

• Three flawed arguments distort democracy:
  • Democracy is reduced to majority rule, sidelining negotiation and minority rights.
  • A craving for “strong leaders” undermines collective governance.
  • Elections are seen as mandates for unlimited power, not as a temporary authorization to govern.
• These misconceptions foster authoritarianism under a democratic facade, justifying both conceptual and physical bulldozing.

Challenges to Democratic Institutions

• Claims of mandates often lead to unchecked political authority, sidelining norms and institutions.
• Practices like appointing “guardian ministers” and constituency budgets reinforce personalised power.
• Courts and constitutional bodies face diminishing public support, weakening their role as checks on power.
• Electoral victories are misused to target communities, polarising society and undermining democracy’s essence.

Bulldozer as a Governance Philosophy

• Legislative bulldozing undermines procedural democracy by dismissing institutional checks.
• Populist rhetoric frames procedures as obstacles to popular will, enabling authoritarian governance.
• A culture of demolishing foundational democratic norms fosters systemic intolerance and undermines balanced governance.
• Democracy’s delicate balance of norms, procedures, and popular will is replaced by megalomania and domination projects.

Concerns with Bulldozer Justice in India:

• Violation of the Rule of Law
  • Bulldozer demolitions often occur without due process, undermining the rule of law.
  • Lack of proper advance notice and opportunity for representation violates natural justice principles.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights
  • Demolition of private homes, especially without legal proceedings, infringes on the Right to Shelter.
  • The Right to Shelter is a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
• Violation of Presumption of Innocence
  • Bulldozer action is carried out based on unproven criminal charges, violating the principle of presumption of innocence.
  • Properties are demolished without waiting for a formal legal process or trial.
• Targeting of Minority Communities
  • Reports suggest that minority groups, particularly Muslims, are disproportionately affected by bulldozer demolitions.
  • Amnesty International highlighted that 128 properties, mostly owned by Muslims, were demolished in 2022, affecting hundreds of people.
• Promotes Authoritarianism
  • Critics argue that bulldozer justice reflects a shift towards authoritarianism.
  • The practice is used as a political tool for retribution against dissenters or marginalised communities.
• Ethical Issues
  • Bulldozer justice conflates the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, violating the separation of powers.
  • Innocent family members of accused individuals suffer disproportionate punishments due to demolitions.

Way Forward to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice:

• Adequate Surveys Before Demolition
  • Requirement: A thorough survey must be conducted before any demolition is carried out.
  • Implementation: Authorities should follow procedural protocols, including issuing proper advance notices, to avoid arbitrary demolitions.
• Pan-India Procedural Guidelines
  • National Framework: A standardised set of procedural guidelines should be incorporated into relevant legislation and municipal authority rules.
  • Phases Covered: Guidelines must ensure compliance during pre-demolition, demolition, and post-demolition processes across the country.
• Shifting the Burden of Proof
  • Responsibility: The burden of proof should lie with the authorities to justify the demolition and displacement actions.
  • Protection of Rights: This shift will protect citizens’ basic human rights, especially the right to shelter, ensuring due process before demolitions are carried out.
• Independent Review Mechanism
  • Independent Committee: A committee comprising judicial and civil society representatives should be set up to review the legality of proposed demolitions.
  • Objective: This will ensure impartiality and accountability in the decision-making process regarding demolitions.
• Focus on Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation Guidelines: Proper guidelines should be created for rehabilitating innocent victims, especially displaced families due to bulldozer actions.
  • Human Rights Standards: International human rights standards must be followed, ensuring the right to adequate housing and compensation for forced evictions.

Conclusion:

The issue of bulldozer justice is symptomatic of deeper, systemic issues threatening democratic values. While the Supreme Court’s ruling is a positive step, the ideological bulldozer, represented by authoritarian tendencies, continues to shape governance. Restoring democratic norms requires a return to procedural fairness and respect for institutional checks.

Source: The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling on bulldozer justice in India. How does this reflect the larger concerns about democratic governance, and what steps can be taken to safeguard procedural democracy in the country?