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.
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers
Please Drop Your Comments