The practice of bulldozer razing the houses of accused or convicted criminals has generated considerable debate recently. The Supreme Court of India recently passed a major judgment relating to this issue.
Stressing on justice, the Court explained that punitive actions like demolitions cannot bypass due legal processes and must be legal and constitutional.
However, the Court’s decision underscores a critical point. Those actions interfering with a person’s rights cannot be labeled preventatives when they avoid specific legal guidelines.
The Court’s directive lays down a “Laxman Rekha” or line that needs to be respected, meaning government authorities cannot use force or other lawful punitive measures that can violate the rights of the citizens.
This has been regarded as prudent to safeguard that other parties do not influence the other to dispense justice unfairly by violating the different processes where claims of such atrocities are made.
Thus, by setting up a clear prohibition for arbitrary demolitions, the Supreme Court underlines the imperative that justice be sought according to law. The ruling will also have a great impact on the actions of state authorities and minimum regulation of constitutional rights enforcement.
Background: The Bulldozer Justice
The act of demolishing the property of accused persons is known as ‘Bulldozer justice’ and has gained much attention in India recently. Mainly employed by some state administrations, it seeks to establish prompt retributive action for apprehended unlawful actions – such as rioting, encroachment, or other transgressions.
Tearing down people’s homes and businesses with bulldozers is done to prevent crime, as witness consequences are effective and noticeable.
While delivering its judgment on the bulldozer action on Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that it was unlawful. The Court has remarked that if somebody is accused or even convicted in any case, it is improper to demolish a house. The Court pointed out that we have paid attention to the opinion of experts. We have had our say after hearing from both sides concerning this order. There must always be a rule of law. In essence, bulldozer action cannot be prejudiced. Something should be compensated for destroying the house in an unauthorized manner.
However, lawyers have seen it as unlawful and unethical since it negates due process and breaches some of the constitutional rights. They argue that such actions are a form of ‘lay judge’ justice, which goes through little legal consideration, and the accused are often afforded little chance of defending their property.
Implications For Future Cases
When the Court said that punitive demolitions must observe due legal process, it discouraged assaultive destruction of properties as a way of enforcing penal sanctions outside the legal system. It will certainly affect how state authorities address such cases in the future and will make them stick to the letter and spirit of legal formalities and the Constitution. It states that before any punitive approach is taken, the person must be legally prosecuted against what is obtainable where allegations are made.
This means that in the future, authorities will have to prove that demolitions are legal exercises concerning violations of property rights, such as cases of encroachment contraventions, rather than administering retributory measures akin to alleged criminality.
This could mean that where any demolition is to be done, authorities may have to present allegations that the notice to comply has not been complied with legally, and chances have to be afforded to individuals to seek eviction in court.
Lawyers expect that this decision will be a reference to this decision, providing a situation whereby the rights of people can be safeguarded against peremptory unlawful actions by the state.
This shift is believed to be likely to create a fair governance environment and promote more reasonable use of force by the authorities, raising the issue of due process of the law even as they maintain order and discipline.