NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, put an interim stop to bulldozer demolitions throughout the country and thereby marks the end to the contentious practice-it will be an end so far. No demolitions are permitted to commence during the interim period that runs until 1st October, except in cases relating to public roads, water bodies or railway lines, in the absence of explicit court permission. This order could have well paved the way for the enunciating of new directives concerning when and under what circumstances properties can be lawfully demolished under municipal laws by the Court.
This comes on the backdrop of increasing criticisms on what has been termed as "bulldozer justice"-State-sanctioned demolitions that have become increasingly common in the recent past. The term bulldozer justice refers to the demolitions mostly of people's homes with the use of bulldozers mainly after communal disturbances. The argument has been that demolished structures are illegal constructions, but the timing and selective targeting have brought other suspicions.
Just last week, a three-member bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti publicly criticized this trend. The bench said such extrajudicial demolitions "are an affront to the very foundation of the rule of law." "Bulldozer justice", the judges noted is unthinkable in a country where law and due process should reign supreme.
The last three years have seen bulldozers become synonymous with punitive action across the country, and particularly after communal violence. Politicians and officials proudly talk about this lightning-fast form of "justice," but it bypasses the legal procedure. Encounter killings and bulldozer demolitions enter into the gray area of extralegal punishment, as though the state endorses them, they are still outside of the limits of lawful conduct.
Such demolitions have been described as capricious and even vengeful by critics. Occasionally, houses are destroyed because of acts carried out by owners, while the former are not themselves guilty; rather it is some of their tenants or other family members who is accused of having committed a crime. This subsequently presents an issue whereby entire families are punished for a crime allegedly committed by one member. Such collective punishment was witnessed during the medieval ages.
ALSO READ:
ALSO WATCH: