Pavan K. Varma | SC must punish dispensers of ‘bulldozer justice’ now

The supremacy of the Constitution, and the majesty of the Supreme Court (SC), count for little in a country where might is right becomes the de facto rule, and the rule of law an optional accessory. The manner in which politicians and political parties are disregarding the principles enshrined in the Constitution, and the express directions of the SC, threatens to demolish the democratic fabric of our nation.

Bulldozer justice is the symbol of this demolition. The purpose is clear — illegally using state power to instill fear and assert dominance. The targets usually are the poor, minorities and dissenters. The demolitions — whether in Maharashtra, UP, Madhya Pradesh or Delhi — are mostly carried out without due process, without notice, and without adherence to the principles of natural justice that includes an opportunity for fair hearing and the presumption of innocence, the very bedrock of our jurisprudential system.

Recently, in the aftermath of communal violence that erupted in Nagpur following protests over a poster of Aurangzeb, bulldozers of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) rolled into action, even though the Mumbai high court had imposed a stay. The administration claimed it was merely enforcing the rule of law against those accused of instigating the riots. In reality, it was yet another instance of bulldozer justice — a punitive measure masquerading as civic action.

Last week, the SC said that demolitions in Prayagraj, UP, within 24 hours of notice, where video footage showed a school girl clutching her books while escaping the demolition, had “shocked our conscience”. The Supreme Court, in a series of observations and rulings, has long drawn a red line. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Umar Khalid & Others (2023), the court unequivocally stated that demolitions cannot be used as a tool of coercion or retribution. Justice B.R. Gavai, writing for the bench, emphasised: “The use of bulldozers to demolish homes without following due process is not only unconstitutional but also barbaric. The state cannot act as a vigilante; it must adhere to the rule of law.”

The court reiterated that even if structures are illegal, proper procedure must be followed — notice must be given, hearings must be conducted and alternative arrangements must be considered before rendering people homeless. The bench further warned against the “weaponisation” of municipal laws to target specific groups, calling it a violation of Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

When state power gets away with unlawful retributive justice without any fear of punishment, it empowers political cadres to also take the law into their hands with impunity. Recently, in Mumbai, when Shiv Sainiks of the Eknath Shinde faction went on a rampage against stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra for insulting their leader, the studio where he recorded his programme was vandalised. Even though cases were later filed against some of the perpetrators, what was left unfinished by the mob was finished off by the state government’s bulldozers. Along with legal rectitude, our politicians seem to have lost their sense of humour too. Emphatic praise or exemplary punishment are the only two polarities we seem to be left with, a great pity since criticism, dissent and freedom of speech are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Moreover, those who support this kind of muscular governance, must understand that unchecked state power can make anyone its next victim — even them. But by then it may be too late to protest. Understanding this is important. Many citizens support summary justice, either through what are called “encounter killings” or bulldozer justice. Perhaps, they have reason to do so. In the normal way, our judicial process is so tardy, and justice often so delayed, that people are fast losing their faith in the judicial system itself. Such a dilatory system is especially milked to the full by the rich and powerful, through money power, political influence and intimidation. But if our judicial system needs radical improvement, dispensing with it altogether is far more dangerous. When due process of law is deliberately bypassed by a predatory state, some criminals may indeed be eliminated or brought to book faster, but what is the guarantee that some innocents are also not arbitrarily penalised, merely because the state does not like them, or finds them inconvenient, or is offended by their temerity to criticise and condemn what they consider is wrong. That is why in any democracy there are legitimate checks on the misuse of state power.

People also buy into the myth of the “strong” leader, who flagrantly and repeatedly uses extra-judicial means to enforce “law and order”. This kind of “hero worship” is democratic suicide because it encourages ambitious leaders to become tyrants, brooking no criticism and dealing with dissenters in whatever way possible by misusing the law. If democratically elected leaders, who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, begin to believe that their popularity depends on their ability to break that very oath, then we have a situation of ourselves colluding in ensuring that such political leaders go berserk, or worse, begin to think that they are invincible and beyond all lawful restraints. Some people may continue to applaud their “firmness of action” or their “no-nonsense” approach, but all responsible citizens must remember in their own interest that bulldozers don’t move only in one direction, nor do guns fire only on so-called “others”. And when those who wield them think they can get away with doing whatever they want, nobody is really safe or even able to seek the protection of the law.

The SC must urgently take action against those who have impudently made a mockery of its express directives and haul them up for contempt of court. Unless those who defy its writ, and the provisions of the Constitution, are given exemplary punishment, the same “jungle raj” of misuse of power will continue. The bulldozer is a machine; it has no conscience. But those who wield it must. The Constitution of India was drafted to protect the weak from the tyranny of the strong. If the state itself becomes an instrument of oppression, democracy loses its soul.