Bulldozer Judgement: A Boon or a Bane?

On Wednesday, 13th November 2024, the Supreme Court passed a judgement on the "Bulldozer Action", which represents a watershed moment. The essence of the judgement is that no property, legal or illegal, can be demolished as a punitive action simply because its owner has been alleged or proven to have committed a crime. This decision highlights that demolitions must closely adhere to due process and cannot be utilized as a form of punishment for criminal behaviour outside of the established judicial system.

Many people are disappointed by this decision. The states effectively used "Bulldozer Justice" as a deterrent against criminal elements, sending a clear message that illegal activities would not be tolerated, particularly in high-crime areas. By demolishing the illegal homes of known criminals, state authorities created an immediate, impactful deterrent that discouraged similar behaviour in the community.

The homes themselves were often illegal constructions, with prior notices already served that had gone unheeded. It was not until the individuals were identified as criminals that action was finally taken, with demolition serving as both a punishment and a way to remove unlawfully built structures. This approach provided what many perceived as "instant justice"—swift, decisive, and visible. It wasn't slowed down by the delays that often leave communities feeling that justice is inaccessible or that wrongdoers can manipulate the system to avoid real consequences.

With this decision, however, there is a possibility that criminal elements will feel emboldened because the immediate fear of bulldozer action has been removed. The high level of legal intricacy, along with the slow pace of our justice system, can lead to years of prosecution and punishment for crimes. This delay fosters the image of impunity, particularly when criminals can avoid punishment through appeals, legal loopholes, or administrative delays. Despite its controversy, Bulldozer Justice gave communities a sense of rapid accountability and deterrent.

However, from a legal perspective, the Supreme Court's intent is to ensure consistency and fairness in how the law is applied. The Court emphasized several core principles. Firstly, the principle of rule of law mandates that no individual should face penalties or loss of property without lawful procedure, preserving equality and preventing selective enforcement. Secondly, the principle of separation of powers prevents executive overreach by reasserting that the judiciary alone has the authority to determine guilt and assign penalties, safeguarding against politically motivated or arbitrary actions.

The Court also highlighted the importance of public accountability and transparency: demolitions, even of illegal structures, should be transparent, legally justified, and non-discriminatory to prevent abuse. Additionally, by advocating pan-India guidelines, the Court aims to standardize procedures for demolitions, ensuring they are equitable and lawful across states.

However, this decision does not change the fact that crime, particularly organized crime, remains a serious problem, with delayed justice creating a hole that might lead to further disorder. By addressing the arbitrariness of Bulldozer Justice, the Court emphasizes one aspect of the issue while leaving the larger question unresolved: why should justice be delayed to the extent where citizens lose faith in the system?

The judiciary must confront the "elephant in the room" of systemic delays. Public frustration over slow, inaccessible justice is understandable, as the lack of swift consequences undermines the rule of law just as bulldozer action would. The Supreme Court should consider encouraging reforms that expedite case resolutions, reduce procedural bottlenecks, and improve transparency to foster trust in the justice system.

While this judgement upholds the spirit of the law, the challenge of implementing timely justice remains. A true solution lies in making our legal processes more efficient and accountable, so that justice is neither hurried nor delayed, but simply and reliably delivered.


Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Khushi Bangia
Certificate Of Excellence - Legal Service India
Authentication No: NV640447706079-28-1124

Share this Article

You May Like

Comments

Submit Your Article



Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


Popular Articles

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi

Titile

How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage

Titile

It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media

Titile

One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...

Titile

The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online


File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly

legal service India.com - Celebrating 20 years in Service

Home | Lawyers | Events | Editorial Team | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Law Books | RSS Feeds | Contact Us

Legal Service India.com is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act (Govt of India) © 2000-2025
ISBN No: 978-81-928510-0-6