That the executive needed to be reminded of its role is worrying, albeit not surprising. Given delays in investigation and the judicial process, retributive vigilante justice has always had an appeal to certain segments of the public. Governments should be immune to this — but not all are, and not all the time.
In recent years, especially, partly from a desire to appear decisive and responsive, and partly to pander to the public’s demand for immediate retributive justice, several state governments have started subscribing to what they popularly term “bulldozer justice”, the demolition of the properties of those accused of crimes (with the magnitude ranging from heinous ones to minor offences that disturb the peace). There have been voices raised in protest, pointing to the unconstitutionality of such demolitions which are a blatant display of overreach, but these have been ignored. The usual defence is that the property in question was illegal.
On Wednesday, following an order in September when it said it would issue guidelines for demolitions, the Supreme Court did so, specifying the details of the process that needs to be followed while demolishing even those properties that violate some laws or encroach on public land (which need to go, of course, but with due process).
The two-judge bench has unequivocally stated that “bulldozer justice” is unconstitutional, for it subverts the rule of law, violates the principles of natural justice and separation of powers of institutions, and the rights of individuals to shelter and a fair trial. As the judgment spells it out, it is for a court to declare a person guilty. Until it does, the accused is presumed innocent. And even when a person is guilty, the punishment has to be what is prescribed by law (which does not prescribe, in any case, demolition of property as a punishment). The bench was critical of the approach of the state governments, pointing out that the selective nature of demolitions made their actions appear retributory: Many of the victims were in the State’s crosshairs for their political, and worse, in some cases, religious beliefs. Understandably, the apex court has held that such action “reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’”.
{{/usCountry}}The two-judge bench has unequivocally stated that “bulldozer justice” is unconstitutional, for it subverts the rule of law, violates the principles of natural justice and separation of powers of institutions, and the rights of individuals to shelter and a fair trial. As the judgment spells it out, it is for a court to declare a person guilty. Until it does, the accused is presumed innocent. And even when a person is guilty, the punishment has to be what is prescribed by law (which does not prescribe, in any case, demolition of property as a punishment). The bench was critical of the approach of the state governments, pointing out that the selective nature of demolitions made their actions appear retributory: Many of the victims were in the State’s crosshairs for their political, and worse, in some cases, religious beliefs. Understandably, the apex court has held that such action “reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where ‘might was right’”.
{{/usCountry}}The apex court’s directions on demolitions are elaborate and clear. And its judgment is an eloquent censure of the executive on its failure to uphold constitutional values. The court has done its job. Now, the executive has to fulfil its responsibility to function as a “trustee” of citizens.