By 
16-11-2024
Fanni Lovas
South East Asia Researcher,
Global Human Rights Defence.
Can justice be served with a bulldozer? India’s Supreme Court has put an end to the controversial practice of demolishing properties as punishment for alleged crimes. This landmark ruling defends the rule of law and constitutional rights, sparking intense debate across the nation.
“Bulldozer Justice” refers to demolishing properties, often affecting marginalised groups, especially Muslims. Critics say these actions are punishment disguised as anti-encroachment efforts. In 2022, several demolitions happened after communal violence, mainly in Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) States like Uttar Pradesh, Assam, and Delhi. Many of these demolitions were done without legal approval, and families were rarely given notice. Human Rights groups have condemned these actions as unfair and unconstitutional.
Responding to petitions filed by victims, the Supreme Court declared such practices unconstitutional. It emphasised that determining guilt and prescribing punishment are the judiciary’s responsibility, and not the executive’s. According to the court, demolishing properties without due process violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and shelter. To prevent misuse, the court laid down strict guidelines, including mandatory notice of at least 15 days, the right to a personal hearing, and videographic documentation of the process. Officials involved in unauthorised demolitions will face contempt of court charges and potential prosecution.
As a signatory to various human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), India is obligated to ensure fair treatment and the protection of fundamental rights. This includes safeguarding housing and ensuring equality before the law for all individuals. However, arbitrary demolitions undermine these obligations, drawing criticism from global organisations. Despite this, critics argue that India’s adherence to international norms often falls short, particularly in cases of communal tension.
India’s Supreme Court has delivered a verdict prohibiting the use of demolitions as a form of punishment for alleged offenders. This decision challenges the controversial practice of destroying properties without proper legal procedure, which has often been criticised for targeting vulnerable groups. By emphasising adherence to legal safeguards and fair treatment, the judgement reinforces the importance of judicial oversight and constitutional protections. The ruling also highlights the need for consistent accountability and fairness in administrative actions, reigniting discussions on the balance between governance and individual rights across the country.
Sources and further readings:
Maanya Chaturvedi, ‘India Supreme Court rules against ‘bulldozer justice’ as permissible punishment for crimes’ (Juristnews, 14 November 2024) <https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/11/india-supreme-court-lays-down-strict-guidelines-against-bulldozer-justice/> accessed 16 November 2024.
Shakeel Sobhan, ‘India: Supreme Court bans ‘bulldozer justice’’(DW, 13 November 2024) <https://www.dw.com/en/india-supreme-court-bans-bulldozer-justice/a-70771474> accessed 16 November 2024.
‘Constitution of India’ (Constitution of India, 1 May 2024) <https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s380537a945c7aaa788ccfcdf1b99b5d8f/uploads/2024/07/20240716890312078.pdf> accessed 16 November 2024.
‘India’s top court denounces demolitions of illegal properties, issues guidelines’ (Reuters, 13 November 2024) <https://www.reuters.com/world/india/indias-top-court-denounces-demolitions-illegal-properties-issues-guidelines-2024-11-13/> accessed 16 November 2024.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976).
Comments