In a candid reflection that resonates deeply with India’s ongoing legal and social discourse, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud recently stated that the order against ‘bulldozer justice’ was among his most important contributions during his tenure. This powerful assertion underscores the judiciary’s firm commitment to upholding the rule of law and due process in the face of contentious practices that have gained traction in various parts of the country. The CJI’s remarks bring into sharp focus the critical role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding constitutional principles against actions perceived by many as extra-judicial and arbitrary.
The Rise and Concerns of ‘Bulldozer Justice’
The term ‘bulldozer justice’ has entered the Indian lexicon to describe a controversial practice where the properties, typically homes or businesses, of individuals accused of crimes are summarily demolished by state authorities. This phenomenon gained significant prominence in several Indian states, notably Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, often targeting those allegedly involved in riots or other serious offenses. Proponents of this approach argue that it serves as a strong deterrent against unlawful activities and signifies swift action by the state to maintain law and order. The visible act of demolition is often portrayed as a decisive measure to restore public confidence and assert governmental authority.
However, critics, including legal luminaries, human rights activists, and opposition parties, have vehemently condemned ‘bulldozer justice’ as a flagrant violation of fundamental rights. They argue that such demolitions bypass established legal procedures, deny individuals the right to due process, and often punish families for the alleged crimes of one member. Questions have also been raised about the selective nature of these demolitions, with concerns that they disproportionately affect minority communities or those critical of the government. The core issue revolves around whether punitive action, especially the destruction of property, can precede or substitute a fair trial and judicial conviction.
CJI Chandrachud’s Stance and the Supreme Court’s Intervention
CJI Chandrachud’s statement highlights the Supreme Court’s proactive role in addressing these concerns. The Court has been seized with multiple petitions challenging the legality of such demolitions, treating them as matters of grave constitutional importance. These petitions typically argue that the demolitions are arbitrary, retaliatory, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the right to property, and the right to livelihood.
The Supreme Court, under the leadership of CJI Chandrachud, has consistently emphasised the imperative of due process and the rule of law. In several instances, the Court has intervened to stay demolition drives and directed authorities to follow established procedures, including issuing prior notices, allowing for appeals, and ensuring that demolitions are not carried out merely as a form of punishment. For instance, in a significant observation, the Court had questioned the selective targeting of properties, stating, “When you have the rule of law, you cannot have selective targeting.” This clearly signalled the judiciary’s disapproval of actions that appear to circumvent legal norms.
The Supreme Court’s intervention reinforces the principle that even in cases of serious alleged offenses, the state must act within the bounds of the law. The demolitions, even if carried out under the guise of municipal violations, become questionable when they coincide with an individual’s alleged involvement in criminal activity, leading to accusations of ulterior motives and punitive intent. As prominent legal scholar, Dr. Alok Kumar, commented, “The judiciary’s firm stance against ‘bulldozer justice’ is a vital assertion of India’s constitutional values. It reminds us that no state action, however well-intentioned, can override the fundamental rights to due process and dignity.” This judicial scrutiny is crucial for maintaining public trust in the justice system and ensuring accountability of state machinery.
Upholding the Rule of Law: Implications and Challenges
The Supreme Court’s consistent messaging, culminating in CJI Chandrachud’s strong statement, carries profound implications for India’s democratic fabric. It serves as a powerful reaffirmation that the nation operates under a constitutional framework, not arbitrary executive fiat. The judiciary acts as the ultimate guardian of fundamental rights, ensuring that the state’s power is exercised within legal limits. This judicial oversight prevents potential abuses of power and protects citizens from actions that could undermine their basic freedoms and sense of security.
While the Supreme Court has set a clear precedent, challenges persist in ensuring complete adherence to its directives across all levels of governance. The temptation for swift, visible action often clashes with the meticulous requirements of due process. However, the CJI’s declaration sends an unequivocal message to both state authorities and citizens: the rule of law is paramount, and extra-judicial measures will not find legitimacy in a democratic India. It reinforces the idea that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done, through fair and established legal channels.
CJI Chandrachud’s assertion regarding the importance of the order against ‘bulldozer justice’ is more than just a personal reflection; it’s a powerful testament to the Indian judiciary’s unwavering commitment to constitutionalism. It highlights the Supreme Court’s pivotal role as a check on executive power, ensuring that the principles of due process, fairness, and the rule of law remain the bedrock of India’s justice system. In an evolving legal landscape, such statements serve as crucial anchors, guiding the nation towards a more just and equitable society.
