Bulldozer Justice: Supreme Court’s Verdict and Democratic Challenges

Source: The post Bulldozer Justice: Supreme Court’s Verdict and Democratic Challenges has been created, based on the article “Two cheers for the top court’s ‘bulldozer’ judgment” published in “The Hindu” And the article “SC verdict is welcome — but the ideological, political bulldozer remains” published in “Indian Express” on 16th November 2024.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2- Judiciary

Context: The article discusses the Supreme Court’s ruling against “bulldozer justice,” where homes were demolished as punishment for alleged offenses. It highlights issues like delayed judicial action, lack of compensation for past victims, and the misuse of building laws to justify demolitions. The article criticizes deeper problems in democracy, such as majoritarianism, craving for strong leaders, and elected officials misusing power. It warns against the rise of “bulldozer ideas,” which undermine democratic norms, procedures, and institutions, posing a threat beyond physical demolitions.

For detailed information on SC Verdict to prevent ‘Bulldozer Justice’ read this article here

What is “Bulldozer Raj” and the Supreme Court’s Judgment?

1. Definition: “Bulldozer Raj” refers to the practice of demolishing homes of accused individuals, often in communal or protest-related contexts, as a form of vigilante justice.
2. Origins: It began during the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens protests and spread across India.
3. Targeted Actions: Often focused on marginalized communities; demolitions were celebrated by politicians as instant justice but justified as action against “illegal constructions.”
4. Supreme Court’s Judgment:

• Declared demolitions without due process illegal.
• Mandated 15 days’ notice, personal hearings, and a right to appeal before demolitions.
• Proportionality Clause: Authorities must justify, in writing, why demolition is necessary and explore alternatives like regularization or partial demolition.
• Accountability: Officials involved in illegal demolitions will be held personally liable.

What are the issues with this Judgement?

1. Delay in Judicial Action:
   The practice of vigilante demolitions began three years ago, during the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests. Despite multiple legal challenges, the Court acted only now, raising concerns about delayed protection of fundamental rights.
2. Lack of Clarity on Past Demolitions:
   The judgment did not specify how to compensate victims of earlier demolitions. Although it held officials personally liable for illegal actions, mechanisms for redress remain unclear.
3. Avoidance of Direct Accountability:
   The Court framed the issue hypothetically, avoiding clear acknowledgment of targeted demolitions, even when evidence showed selective demolitions and communal bias.
4. Exclusion of Vulnerable Groups:
   The judgment excluded slums and informal settlements, leaving the poorest communities unprotected from demolitions.
5. Enforcement Concerns:
   Previous guidelines on lynching and hate speech failed due to lack of enforcement. Similar risks exist for this ruling.

What are the deeper issues with democracy?

1. Majoritarianism: Democracy is reduced to majority rule, undermining negotiation and compromise. Numeric dominance often targets minority communities, as seen in communal demolitions and bulldozer justice.
2. Craving for Strong Leaders: There is growing demand for leaders who bypass procedures, celebrated as “tough.” For example, banners glorified Maharashtra’s Deputy CM after an encounter.
3. Misinterpretation of Elections: Elections are viewed as mandates, granting unchecked power. Leaders behave like kings, ignoring norms. Practices like “guardian ministers” reinforce this.
4. Erosion of Institutional Checks: A survey by Lokniti revealed 33% believed courts and institutions are unnecessary to check leaders’ powers.
5. Bulldozing Procedures: Instant justice actions like demolitions bypass due process. For instance, notices were backdated to justify demolitions, targeting slums and marginalized groups.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment on “bulldozer justice” highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law and protecting democratic values. Guidelines like notice, hearings, and proportionality aim to prevent misuse of demolitions. However, deeper issues remain, such as majoritarianism, impatience with democratic procedures, and the misuse of power by elected leaders. The “conceptual bulldozer” undermines democracy through excessive statism and populist governance, threatening citizens’ rights and foundational norms.

Question for practice:

Examine how the Supreme Court’s judgment on “Bulldozer Raj” addresses the misuse of power and the deeper challenges to democratic values in India.