BULLDOZER JUSTICE AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW
The practice of demolishing the houses of the accused and even of those who are under trial by using a bulldozer, and all this is directed by the government this so-called process is known as a bulldozer justice. Our government has started this practice out of the concern of giving justice to women as fast as possible. They are punishing criminals who have committed severe crimes and are under trial. They do not wait to give them the right to be heard even if the criminals are already arrested the family of the accused has to face the consequence of seeing demolition in front of their eyes.
They cannot even oppose the government’s act as the media glorifies it as the BULLDOZER JUSTICE ( like the government is an excellent work) and the government takes this action based on that, they are living on an unauthorised property illegally which is government property.
Why have they adopted this way of providing justice by razing the houses of the people ( accused)
Some statements that the UP’s CM gave
During the elections of 2022
‘we have a special machine which we are using for building expressways and highways. At the same time, we are using it to crush the mafia who exploited people to their properties
We will bulldoze your house even if you think of crime.
The government has taken it as an instant way of giving justice to the prosecutrix and their families. But maybe the government by going blindly may have forgotten that this practice is against the rule of law.
Two ways they have adopted
- Demolishing the houses of the accused, even though there isn’t any procedure under the law which permits the government to do so.
- By encountering criminals who are against the constitution and rule of law
Both ways are against the due process of law
Here government has adopted the retributive punishment
‘retributive theory of punishment seeks to turn the crime back on the criminals’ in other words -; eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth
However, the procedure of giving punishment is an essential and fundamental aspect of criminal law, as punishment is necessary to hold offenders accountable for their procedure.
But only the state has the authority to sanction such a punishment and this authority is derived from the law and the state shall have to follow this procedure.
Is it detritus to the rule of law? India
As we all know that is a democratic country where we elect the candidates who make decisions and make laws for the people, but they are not above the law, they have to follow the constitution before making any law or statute.
But in the bulldozer justice case what the government is doing is a violation of the principle of natural justice of “audi alterm partem” which of part of PNJ. Without following due process of law and razing the house of the criminals is against the rule of law. So on this, we can say that this type of action by the government is hazardous to the constitution.
Due process of law
Under this legal matters be resolved according to established rules and principles and an individual must be treated fairly and equally. Here, the government has the legal authority to demolish someone’s private property under specific conditions. A few of those conditions are structures that violate any rules and regulations of that particular state government. Unapproved or unauthorized construction on land owned by the government and construction of buildings that encroach on another person’s property.
For instance,_ sec 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1975, provides a procedural mechanism to deal with illegal construction. Under this, a notice should be issued ahead of demolishing any structure that has been built unlawfully. Hence, the commissioner of the municipal corporation is empowered to command for demolishing. But NO order shall be made unless the person has been given a notice. A reasonable opportunity of showing cause that why such an order shall not be made.
The legality of such a bulldozer justice.
This act of the government is a violation of fundamental rights.
Some cases are referred-;
Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985
“court ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers by using unreasonable force” without giving them a chance to explain themselves is unconstitutional. And it is a violation of their right to livelihood.
Right to shelter
In case of UP avas evam vikas parishad and anr. Vs friends corporation Housing Society Ltd and anr.1996
Sc held that the right to shelter is a fundamental right which are springs from the right to residence assured in Article 19(1) e and the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution.
In the case of the state of Karnataka and Ors vs Narsimahmurthy and others,1966
Sc ruled that the right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 19(1) e and to make this right meaningful the state must provide facilities and opportunities to build houses.
Case of Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimlal Toame, 1990
SC man has their basic need for living – food, clothing, shelter and this right shall be guaranteed in any civilized society.
In the case of Jamial Ulama e hind vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Supreme Court stopped bulldozer demolition across the country without its permission. Except for encroachment on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies. Supreme Court ensures that its order does not help encroach on public places.
Jt. Gavai – “We made clear we won’t come between unauthorized construction but the executive can’t be a judge”
Jt. Viswanathan – “even if there is one instance of illegal demolition it is against the ethos of the constitution” and also said that violation of order given by them would amount to contempt.
Supreme court said that it will lay down guidelines for all citizens on the issue of demolition of property of accused under ‘pan-india’
