Bulldozer Justice: SC Order Falls Far Short of a Real Fix

While several media outlets have been hailing the Supreme Court for what they describe as a historic intervention against "bulldozer justice," the reality is far from deserving such praise. Reports of the court halting this form of extrajudicial punishment are flooding the airwaves, with claims that the judiciary has struck a massive blow to ‘bulldozer politics’. But let’s not be swayed by hyperbole. The truth is, the Supreme Court has not accomplished anything monumental here. In fact, it hasn’t even scratched the surface when it comes to addressing the real issue—rogue elements holding high positions in state governments. Yes, I’ll call it what it is: a government-backed demolition of poor people’s homes, driven by vendettas and fueled by religious and ethnic discrimination, is nothing short of unconstitutional.

When a government that is meant to safeguard its citizens weaponises state machinery to crush the lives of the vulnerable, bulldozing homes as a tactic of intimidation and revenge, it shows us something deeply troubling about the health of our democracy. Bulldozer politics has been a menacing presence for nearly eight years, with not a single person responsible for these actions facing any form of criminal accountability. The Supreme Court—our highest judicial body—has much more to do in this regard. Temporarily applying brakes on bulldozers until October 1 is hardly a remedy for the years of destruction, the irreparable harm inflicted on families, and the systemic injustice that has flourished under the guise of governance. It’s time to ask: can’t the apex court, as the country’s most powerful legal institution, do more than offer a temporary reprieve while lives continue to be upended?

Before diving into the nuances of bulldozer politics, let’s first dissect what the Supr

While several media outlets have been hailing the Supreme Court for what they describe as a historic intervention against "bulldozer justice," the reality is far from deserving such praise. Reports of the court halting this form of extrajudicial punishment are flooding the airwaves, with claims that the judiciary has struck a massive blow to ‘bulldozer politics’. But let’s not be swayed by hyperbole. The truth is, the Supreme Court has not accomplished anything monumental here. In fact, it hasn’t even scratched the surface when it comes to addressing the real issue—rogue elements holding high positions in state governments. Yes, I’ll call it what it is: a government-backed demolition of poor people’s homes, driven by vendettas and fueled by religious and ethnic discrimination, is nothing short of unconstitutional.

When a government that is meant to safeguard its citizens weaponises state machinery to crush the lives of the vulnerable, bulldozing homes as a tactic of intimidation and revenge, it shows us something deeply troubling about the health of our democracy. Bulldozer politics has been a menacing presence for nearly eight years, with not a single person responsible for these actions facing any form of criminal accountability. The Supreme Court—our highest judicial body—has much more to do in this regard. Temporarily applying brakes on bulldozers until October 1 is hardly a remedy for the years of destruction, the irreparable harm inflicted on families, and the systemic injustice that has flourished under the guise of governance. It’s time to ask: can’t the apex court, as the country’s most powerful legal institution, do more than offer a temporary reprieve while lives continue to be upended?

Before diving into the nuances of bulldozer politics, let’s first dissect what the Supreme Court’s recent order actually entails. The court issued a three-point directive, which can be summarised as follows:

1. At the request of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the court has scheduled a hearing on October 1st, where this issue will be addressed as the first item on the agenda.

2. Until the next hearing, the court has mandated that no demolition can occur across the country without prior permission from the court.

3. The court has specified that this order does not apply to demolitions of unauthorised structures situated in public areas such as roads, streets, footpaths, abutting railway lines, or near river bodies and water bodies. The order also notes that the halting also does not affect demolitions where there is an order of demolition made by a court of law. 

Here’s where the problem lies. A closer examination of the third point reveals a critical gap. Most of the demolitions that have been carried out in recent years fall precisely into the categories outlined in this exception. This means that the majority of demolitions, often executed under the guise of public welfare or legality, are unaffected by this new directive. Consequently, this leaves us in essentially the same position as before, with the systemic issues of bulldozer politics still unaddressed. So, while the Supreme Court’s order might seem like a step in the right direction, it appears to be more symbolic than substantive, failing to disrupt the status quo and effectively sending us back to square one.

Now let’s look at cases where the court actually halted demolitions but its directives were flouted. Take, for instance, the 2022 episode in Delhi. Despite a clear Supreme Court order to suspend demolitions of illegal structures, the North Delhi Municipal Corporation carried out demolitions in Jahangirpuri without hesitation. Similarly, in Uttar Pradesh, demolitions continued in defiance of an intervention by the Allahabad High Court. The situation in Khargone in Madhya Pradesh mirrors this pattern, with demolitions proceeding despite a high court’s directive to maintain the status quo.

What does this tell us? It reveals a disturbing truth: the perpetrators of these demolitions operate with a troubling sense of impunity. They clearly understand that the likelihood of facing genuine legal repercussions is minimal. This lack of fear is indicative of a deeper systemic problem. When those tasked with enforcing the law can blatantly disregard judicial orders, it speaks volumes about the effectiveness of our legal mechanisms.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court is currently considering the formation of pan-India guidelines to prevent the demolition of properties belonging to individuals accused of criminal offences. While this may seem like a well-meaning move, it could prove counterproductive. Guidelines, in this case, might become yet another tool for perpetrators to manipulate and exploit the system, twisting the law to justify their bulldozer politics under the guise of legality.

What we need isn't more guidelines or regulations that are ripe for manipulation. Instead, there must be tangible accountability. A far more effective solution would be the filing of criminal complaints against the erring officials and their political masters, as these acts are purely criminal offences, and filing petitions in lower courts seeking compensation for damages from the personal assets of those directly responsible for these unlawful actions. Why should the burden fall on the state exchequer when it is individuals—acting under the protection of state machinery—who commit these violations? By holding the perpetrators personally liable, we introduce the element most missing from the current system: the fear of real, personal consequences. Only when those in power understand that they risk their own assets and livelihoods will the law begin to have the deterrent effect it’s meant to. Otherwise, these so-called reforms will merely offer another legal loophole, maintaining the status quo.

The so-called justice delivered through the use of bulldozers to raze the homes of minority communities and marginalised sections greatly violates Article 14 of our Constitution. This fundamental article guarantees that the State shall not deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Yet, we have repeatedly witnessed demolitions targeting only homes of individuals belonging to minority communities, even when structures belonging to others remain untouched on the same patch of land. If this isn't a flagrant breach of Article 14, then what is?

Moreover, I've personally observed instances where perpetrators forge backdated demolition notices to justify their actions. This fraudulent activity is not merely unethical—it's a criminal offence.

Let’s be clear: this isn't about justifying illegal occupations. It’s about rejecting selective demolition driven by political motives. The most alarming aspect of these demolitions is that they are executed not just for political gain but often without any or adequate notice to the affected residents. One day, families find their homes reduced to rubble, and in some cases, they are given a fleeting opportunity to salvage their belongings. In others, even this brief notice is conspicuously absent.

Adding insult to injury, many of these residents have been paying for essential services like electricity and water and, in some cases, even property taxes. These demolitions occur without offering residents a legally mandated opportunity to present their case or their side of the story by submitting relevant documents before the authorities. The act of demolition is not just an assault on buildings; it’s an attack on the lives of ordinary people. The courts must recognise this as a severe humanitarian issue.

The scale and the political exploitation of these demolitions become even clearer when we examine statements from top politicians. Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s declarations that bulldozers will continue to crush “criminals and mafia” and his warning, “If you create trouble in Uttar Pradesh, the bulldozer will come for you,” are particularly telling. Similarly, senior BJP leaders have openly threatened that throwing stones or attacking sacred cows will result in bulldozer reprisals. This rhetoric reveals that bulldozers have become a tool for political retribution, supplanting the role of the judiciary.

If the highest court of the land fails to curb this trend, bulldozers will continue to replace the judiciary's role in delivering justice. And if this situation isn't addressed with urgency, we might soon find ourselves living in a country where justice is administered not by courts but by bulldozers—an ironic twist that would render the rule of law a mere relic of the past.