[Bulldozer Action] "Demolitions Carried Out In Strict Provision Of Law": SC Praises UP Govt’s Legal Adherence

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Government’s handling of the controversial ‘bulldozer action’, which involved demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes. According to a report, the Court commended the affidavit submitted by the Yogi Adityanath administration.

This affidavit, filed by the Special Secretary of the Home Department, affirmed that demolitions were carried out in strict accordance with legal procedures.

In light of these concerns, a bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan proposed creating nationwide guidelines to regulate the demolition of properties by the government. The Court also called for input from relevant stakeholders to help formulate these guidelines.

This response addresses numerous Supreme Court petitions challenging the state’s increasing use of bulldozers to raze houses, shops, and commercial properties belonging to the accused.

In 2022, local authorities in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, demolished a house where Mohammad Javed and his family lived, just one day after issuing a notice for construction violations. Javed had been arrested the previous day on charges of inciting a violent protest.

As bulldozers flattened the house, the family was able to salvage only a few belongings. It was later discovered that the demolished house actually belonged to Javed’s wife, Parveen Fatima, not to Javed himself.

The Supreme Court previously voiced serious concerns about the ethical and legal implications of such demolitions, asserting that destroying an accused’s property, even after conviction, is not legally justifiable.

In a case, when Javed was in jail, his wife Parveen and their daughter Sumaiya had to relocate with relatives in the city. The rapid demolition of their house within 24 hours of the notice raises questions about the urgency of such actions.

Although not often stated openly, the real objective seemed to be to punish Javed quickly and harshly. By 2022, this form of “bulldozer justice” had become a prevalent practice in Uttar Pradesh.

The 2022 demolition of Parveen’s house exemplifies retribution disguised as justice, much like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

This form of bulldozer justice is no longer confined to Uttar Pradesh; it has spread to other BJP-ruled states as well.

The Supreme Court made it clear on Monday that even if someone is convicted, their property cannot be demolished without following established legal procedures.

Bulldozer justice is illegal on multiple grounds.

While the Supreme Court supports action against illegal structures blocking public access, it emphasized that all demolitions must adhere to established legal standards. The justices reiterated their commitment to ensuring that future demolitions are carried out lawfully.

In the context of bulldozer justice, there is a perception that swift justice is necessary and is often welcomed by the public—until they face it themselves. This reality hit Bareilly-based BJP supporter Rajeev Rana hard when his own home was demolished.

Despite his previous support for the BJP and its policies, Rana found himself devastated, lamenting, “Where would we go? My entire family is on the road.” This experience was a harsh wake-up call for Rana, who recognized that even those who blindly support the BJP could fall victim to such practices.

FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS IN THE CONCEPT OF BULLDOZER JUSTICE

The Supreme Court’s observations underscore the fundamental flaws in the concept of bulldozer justice. This approach not only bypasses legal procedures but also disregards the principles of due process and fair trial.

A person should be tried and punished for the crime they have committed, while issues related to illegal construction should be handled separately. Moreover, punishing a person’s family for the individual’s actions is unjust, as they are often not involved in the crime.

The use of bulldozers as a punitive measure has also fostered a climate of fear and intimidation, particularly targeting minority communities, as argued by the petitioners in the Supreme Court. The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind petition contends that state governments are using bulldozers to intimidate and oppress marginalized communities, employing extra-legal means to punish individuals without allowing them a fair legal defense.

Many affected individuals report not receiving prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice. The lack of resettlement or compensation further exacerbates their suffering.

The Supreme Court’s review of this issue is timely, as the practice of bulldozer justice has been increasing. Such measures undermine the legal system and introduce extrajudicial actions, creating a culture of fear and retribution. This approach is fundamentally opposed to the principles of justice and the rule of law, which are vital to a democratic society. Justice should focus on reforming the guilty, rather than relying on retribution.