Punish govts that follow ‘bulldozer justice’
The Supreme Court has expressed strong disapproval of what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice”, and has proposed to frame guidelines on how to deal with unauthorised constructions.
The court’s move could have come earlier, before retributive demolitions became entrenched policy practised by many BJP-ruled governments. Courts have taken note of individual demolitions in the past, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court even described a demolition drive carried out in Haryana last year as “ethnic cleansing”.
Destruction of the homes of persons accused of offences is sought to be made normal punishment, and has been accepted as right and legitimate by many. It was started over five years ago in Uttar Pradesh by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and has been followed by other BJP-ruled states such as Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Assam.
Bulldozer action is not really a legal but a political issue, and is almost always directed against Muslims. No law allows instant justice which the bulldozer culture promotes, and justice can only be delivered through due process in a society governed by rule of law.
Unfortunately, there is even a section of society that sanctions and even glorifies instant justice, and the bulldozer is a symbol of that. When the demand for instant justice combines with prejudice against Muslims, the bulldozer becomes a weapon for retribution carried out with the sanction and might of the State.
It is not the purported offence which is addressed, it becomes an excuse to punish a person for his identity, and thus becomes hate action and an identity crime committed by the State.
Basically, there is no need for guidelines on bulldozer justice, because it is lawless action and should be shunned altogether. The court made the legal position clear when it asked how anybody’s house can be demolished because he is an accused in a case. It also said that the law did not permit such demolition even if a person is a convict.
The provision for demolition of illegal constructions in some laws is wrongly used to punish people of one section. This is clear from the UP government’s argument that all statutory procedures are followed in the demolitions. The point is, why only some constructions are targeted.
The discrimination in the use of the law is at the heart of the demolition culture, and the court’s guidelines should address that. Even illegal constructions cannot be demolished without providing alternative accommodation for those who would lose shelter.
A discriminatory and arbitrary politics, driven by religious hatred, is driving the bulldozer, and a government that follows the policy is a lawless government that should be punished, even dismissed in case it repeats the offence. The moot question is whether the guidelines will provide for that.