How Supreme Court Guidelines Curb the Rise of ‘Bulldozer Justice’?

bulldozer
Some low-budget houses were bulldozed in a Muslim locality in Ahmedabad.

The Supreme Court’s recent diktat on property demolitions, issued on November 13, mark a pivotal shift in curbing what is commonly known as “bulldozer justice.” This term refers to the controversial practice where state authorities use bulldozers to demolish properties linked to individuals accused of criminal offences, particularly in communally sensitive cases. It was more used against the people of minorities particularly from the Muslim community. With Yogi remaking his image as Bulldozer Baba, which seemed growing into a potent, often polarising, symbol within India’s political discourse. Supporters see it as a decisive stance against criminals, while critics argue it represents a blatant violation of civil rights.

The Bulldozer Phenomenon

These demolitions, carried out particularly in the BJP ruled states such as Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Assam, and Haryana, have frequently involved properties connected to particular communities after incidents of unrest, raising concerns about selective enforcement, majoritarianism, and overreach by the executive. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a prominent advocate of this approach, even earned the nickname “Bulldozer Baba” for his role.

Amid this contentious climate, the Supreme Court has intervened, setting forth a blunt and comprehensive framework to restrict such unilateral actions and reinforce constitutional due process and the rule of law. Led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, the court’s directives impose stringent procedural safeguards to prevent the misuse of demolitions as a form of arbitrary punishment. These guidelines underscore the importance of due process, uphold the separation of powers, and protect individual rights, aiming to ensure that demolitions are not wielded as a tool for collective retribution.

Key Aspects of the Supreme Court’s Guidelines on Property Demolitions

The following are the key elements of the SC’s guidelines on property demolitions, how about checking them out as under:  

  • Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: The Supreme Court’s ruling requires a mandatory “show-cause notice” to be served to property owners before any demolition. This notice, with a minimum returnable period of 15 days (or as per local laws), must detail the specific statutory violations and reasons for demolition. This provision ensures property owners have enough time to contest allegations or take corrective action, aiming to prevent the abrupt demolitions often witnessed in recent cases.
  • Digital Tracking and Documentation: To increase transparency, the guidelines mandate digital tracking of the demolition process. Once a notice is issued, a digital copy must be sent to the district magistrate’s office with an auto-generated acknowledgment, preventing backdating. Additionally, the notice must be posted on the property itself to inform residents and the public. This measure addresses the frequent lack of documentation and clarity that has historically plagued such actions.
  • Right to Personal Hearing and Appeals: Property owners must be granted the right to a personal hearing before a final demolition decision is made. The designated authority must record the minutes of this hearing and provide written justification if demolition is deemed necessary. If an appeal process exists, demolition cannot proceed until 15 days post-decision, allowing property owners time to seek further recourse. This aspect strengthens procedural rights and prevents executive overreach.
  • Videography of Demolition Proceedings: The Supreme Court mandates videography of all demolition activities, with the footage archived for accountability. This step is designed to deter irregularities, prevent unlawful demolitions, and offer video evidence for review if the legality of a demolition is challenged.
  • Institutional Accountability and Officer Liability: Officials who carry out demolitions in violation of the guidelines face potential contempt proceedings, personal liability for restitution, and disciplinary actions. This accountability clause curtails the common practice of shielding officials under the cover of state authority, thereby discouraging misuse of power.
  • Public Portal for Demolition Records: The Court has ordered all municipal bodies to create digital portals within three months to publicly display records of demolition orders, show-cause notices, and relevant documents. This platform allows residents to track municipal actions, promoting transparency and reducing arbitrary demolitions.
  • Exemptions for Public Safety Cases: The guidelines specify that immediate demolitions are permitted for unauthorised structures in public areas like roads, railway tracks, or water bodies, where safety concerns necessitate urgent action. This exception allows the state to address public hazards without compromising due process protections for private property.
  • Impact on State Demolition Protocols and Legal Frameworks: The ruling significantly affects states with established demolition practices, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Delhi, where municipal laws previously allowed wide discretion in handling unauthorised constructions. The Supreme Court’s guidelines now impose uniform procedural standards across India, requiring states to integrate these protections into their protocols, particularly in regions where demolition drives have drawn public scrutiny.
  • The Case Background and Legal Context: The historic ruling has its roots in a high-profile case from Delhi’s Jahangirpuri neighbourhood, where demolitions targeted alleged participants in communal unrest, disproportionately affecting Muslim residents. The Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind filed a petition, arguing that these actions violated constitutional rights under Article 21 (right to life) and Article 300A (right to property). The Supreme Court initially issued a stay on demolitions lacking due process, indicating its commitment to addressing the broader legal flaws in such practices.

Final thoughts 

For some political figures, bulldozers have symbolised swift action against disorder, particularly amid communal tensions. However, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores that executive power must not supplant the judiciary. The guidelines reinforce that justice, no matter how visually appealing for certain political constituencies, must always align with the rule of law. By setting pan-India standards, the Supreme Court has conveyed that selective enforcement based on community or political bias is unacceptable. This ruling stands as a testament to India’s democratic values, reminding citizens that every home, regardless of size or location, is shielded by the Constitution.

(Mohd Ziyauallah Khan is a freelance content writer & editor based in Nagpur. He is also an activist and social entrepreneur, co-founder of the group TruthScape, a team of digital activists fighting disinformation on social media.)

Support Countercurrents

Countercurrents is answerable only to our readers. Support honest journalism because we have no PLANET B.
Become a Patron at Patreon

Join Our Newsletter

GET COUNTERCURRENTS DAILY NEWSLETTER STRAIGHT TO YOUR INBOX

Join our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Get CounterCurrents updates on our WhatsApp and Telegram Channels

Related Posts

Bulldozer Injustice

The Supreme Court has not only raised objections but also expressed concern over the practice of demolishing the homes of criminal suspects, accused, or convicts using bulldozers. It has indicated…

Politics of bulldozer raj!

This is an inhuman and fascist act against the Dalits, Adivasis and minority communities living in India to destroy the existence of a particular community on the lines of Hitler.…

Join Our Newsletter


Annual Subscription

Join Countercurrents Annual Fund Raising Campaign and help us

Latest News