The stand recently taken by the apex court against what is commonly known as “bulldozer justice” may also be viewed as an eye-opener from several angles. Certainly, the Supreme Court expressed a stand against demolition of a house only if it belongs to an accused or a convict in a criminal case. This stand was in response to petitions filed before the Supreme Court against “bulldozer justice” being meted out in the country. What is equally noteworthy is the court’s proposal for guidelines to be followed prior to demolition of homes in the country. Of course, the apex court has taken a very crucial step in this direction. This move also draws attention to the limited importance being accorded so far by respected political as well as legislative authorities to their being apparently lack of adequate guidelines which need to be upheld prior to pursuing “bulldozer justice.”
In fact, it may be more appropriate to describe deliberate use of bulldozers, without being bound by required legal guidelines, to using “bulldozer-law/threat/raj” as viewed so by those commanding their use. Adding the word “justice” to it is equivalent to negating the impression about justice. Yes, the question of viewing the use of bulldozers may be also viewed as imposition of their “raj” through their use, by those who view their own “rules and regulations” as above the ones they are supposed to be bound by. From no angle can these be viewed as ethically and/or legally just. Undeniably, it seems lack of effective measures to check use of bulldozers has over the years only contributed to increasing their use as and when desired by those commanding the same.
Threat posed by “bulldozer-raj” appears to have been exercised for demolition of houses, shops and even religious places for various reasons including communal, construction, socio-political, “religious,” economic and others. At times, attempts have been made to justify the same through “legal” process- such as issuance of certain notices to residents/users of the places being targeted for demolition. The worst sufferers appear to be residents of slums when their homes/shops have been targeted through bulldozers to beautify an area or for other purposes. During phases of communal tension also, the worst hit have often been the poorer sections.
Now that some attention has been drawn by apex court to need of certain pan-India guidelines regarding use of bulldozers for demolition of homes, one is prompted to deliberate on a few issues linked the same. It is still not certain by when will such guidelines be outlined and reach the stage of being effectively implemented. Besides, once these are being actually considered, hopefully greater importance is accorded to viewing illegal use of bulldozers as criminal offence, subject to punishment. Equally significant is the need for emphasis against “demolitions” so that it reaches the stage of being given some importance by concerned leaders/authorities who seem to “glorify” a part of their prowess because of the command they have over its use. This may also be linked with their basking over a strange victory linked with their having “succeeding” in targeting usually the already aggrieved sections by demolishing their resources. Hopefully, the guidelines against demolition, likely to be considered, will also pay some attention to who is/are primarily responsible for pressurizing and/or initiating demolition moves for unjustified reasons. This primarily refers to demolition being indulged in the name of religion, to incite communal violence, as a punishment, for the sake of development and so forth, without due consideration being given to sufferings the same spell for aggrieved parties. It takes minutes to demolish a house or any structure to raise which an entire life-time’s earnings and more may have been spend.
With the apex court having specifically laid stress against demolition of homes, it is hoped, that some justice shall also be delivered to houses of those which have been demolished in the past. Regarding demolition after issuance of notices, it seems, the bench does not favor this too strongly. This is suggested by Justice KV Viswanathan laying emphasis on demolition being pursued through a due process of following certain measures. He said, “First issue notice, give time to answer, time to seek legal remedies, and then demolition.” One is tempted to deliberate here on whether the guidelines will also lay stress on what action would be considered against any demolition which takes place without issuing notice and other measures as stated by Justice Viswanathan. Indirectly, his words may also be considered as part of guidelines expected to be followed prior to proceeding with demolition.
Till guidelines are outlined and probably reach the stage of being implemented, chances of demolition-raj/threat receding to stage of not being pursued seem remote. What does this suggest? Simply, that demolition-raj/threat is likely to continue. Whether it does or not, one is fairly stunned at their apparently not being any adequate legal measures to keep a check on demolition of homes. The bench laid stress that it was not defending illegal structures but at the same time pointed to the need of certain guidelines, which need to be “documented.” In essence, the apex court apparently laid stress on misuse of existing local laws, being practiced in different parts of the country, resorting to demolition of residents of accused/alleged criminals as well as “illegal” structures and so forth without issuing notices and/or giving the targeted parties enough time to seek needed legal remedies. The issue is simply not that of their not being legal remedies to appeal against demolition, but that of their not being given needed importance. Besides, local laws seem to differ from state to state. This apparently prompted the bench to lay stress on need of “pan-India” guidelines.
The apex court’s stand against demolition of homes and stress on need of pan-India guidelines regarding this may be viewed as it being opposed to what is known as “demolition-justice.” What is viewed as “appropriate justice” by those practicing demolition-raj/threat, they should probably reconsider their stand on this issue. When and if apex court voices reservations/opposition on any issue, it also means that judicial hammer has made the needed noise on this or has at least expressed a firm stand regarding it. Now, it is hoped this serves as an eye-opener for those tending to go overboard regarding their demolition-strategies. Will it or not or will demolition-raj/threats continue as they are?
Nilofar Suhrawardy is a senior journalist and writer with specialization in communication studies and nuclear diplomacy. She has come out with several books. These include:– Modi’s Victory, A Lesson for the Congress…? (2019); Arab Spring, Not Just a Mirage! (2019), Image and Substance, Modi’s First Year in Office (2015) and Ayodhya Without the Communal Stamp, In the Name of Indian Secularism (2006).
