BULLDOZER JUSTICE: THE THREAT TO DUE PROCESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  THEHINDU

Context

The Allahabad High Court ruled that immediate demolitions following FIRs are unconstitutional and violate due process, stating that punishment is exclusively a judicial function.

What is Bulldozer Justice?

Bulldozer Justice is a term used to describe the punitive practice where government authorities use heavy machinery to demolish the homes and businesses of individuals accused of crimes—such as rioting, rape, or murder— without following established legal procedures.

While authorities justify these actions as "anti-encroachment drives" against unauthorised constructions, critics and the judiciary view them as a form of extra-judicial collective punishment that bypasses the courts.

How "Bulldozer Justice" Violates Core Constitutional Principles?

Violation of the Rule of Law: The Rule of Law mandates that the state must act according to established legal procedures rather than arbitrary discretion. 

• Arbitrary Action: Demolitions without notice or a fair hearing are considered "high-handed" and arbitrary.
• Presumption of Innocence: Punitive demolitions against an accused person ignore the foundational legal principle that a person is "innocent until proven guilty". 

Breach of Separation of Powers: Under the Constitution, the power to adjudicate guilt and award punishment belongs solely to the judiciary, not the executive. 

• Executive Overreach: When state officials demolish homes as a "punishment," they bypass the courts and perform a judicial function, upsetting the constitutional balance.
• Illegal Adjudication: The executive cannot act as "judge and jury" by determining a person’s guilt through the destruction of their property. 

Infringement of Fundamental Rights: "Bulldozer Justice" directly impacts several Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution: 

• Article 21 (Right to Life and Shelter): The right to life includes the right to a dignified existence and the Right to Shelter. Sudden demolitions render families homeless, violating this core right.
• Article 14 (Right to Equality): Selective targeting—where only the houses of accused individuals are razed while similar illegal structures in the vicinity are left untouched—is discriminatory and violates equal protection under the law.
• Article 300A (Right to Property): No person can be deprived of their property except by "authority of law," which requires a just, fair, and reasonable procedure. 

Imposition of Collective Punishment: Demolishing a home punishes the entire family of the accused, including innocent women, children, and the elderly.

• This constitutes collective punishment, which is alien to Indian criminal jurisprudence and international human rights standards like the Geneva Convention. 

Violation of Natural Justice: The principles of Natural Justice require that a person be given an opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem) before any adverse action is taken. 

• Failure to provide prior notice (at least 15 days, as mandated by the Supreme Court Guidelines) and a chance to contest the demolition order makes the action unconstitutional. 

Supreme Court Guidelines on Bulldozer Justice 

In the case of In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024), the Supreme Court laid down legally binding, pan-India guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions.

Prohibition on Punitive Demolition: The Court explicitly forbade the demolition of a property as a punitive measure, calling such actions "wholly unconstitutional."

Mandatory Notice Period: A minimum show-cause notice of 15 days must be served to the property owner or occupier before any demolition.

Right to a Hearing: The affected party must be given an opportunity for a personal hearing to present their case.

Reasoned "Speaking Order": The authorities must issue a detailed written order explaining why demolition is the only viable option and why alternatives like fines (compounding) are not applicable.

Transparency through Documentation: The entire process, from serving notice to the final demolition, must be videographed to ensure accountability.

Personal Liability for Officials: Officials who violate these guidelines will be held personally liable for providing restitution and paying damages for the demolished property.

Way Forward

Strict Enforcement of SC Guidelines

State governments must institutionalize the Supreme Court's guidelines through training, audits, and robust internal accountability mechanisms.

Sustained Judicial Vigilance

High Courts must continue to act as watchful sentinels, taking suo motu cognizance and providing swift redressal against arbitrary executive actions.

Legislative Reforms

Municipal and urban planning laws should be amended to include clauses that explicitly prohibit their use for punitive purposes related to criminal cases.

Strengthen Official Accountability

Implement measures for the personal liability of erring officials, including making them responsible for compensation and facing departmental action.

Shift Focus to Criminal Justice Reform

The state must invest in strengthening police investigation, prosecution, and judicial infrastructure to ensure timely and fair trials, making extra-legal measures redundant.

Conclusion

To preserve the Rule of Law in India, the path forward must include enforcing accountability, and leveraging digital transparency to ensure the bulldozer is used for construction, not unconstitutional destruction

Source: THEHINDU