The concept of ‘bulldozer justice’ may have political purchase in New India. But it is legally — and morally — untenable. The fact that it is a perversion of justice has been made clear by the Supreme Court which stated that the arbitrary demolition of the properties of citizens, including those accused or convicted of criminality, undermines the rule of law. Responding to a clutch of pleas that complained of such extrajudicial action, the apex court, using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has laid down specific conditions that the authorities have to honour before going ahead with such demolitions. These conditions include, among others, the provision of a prior notice period for a person to respond to or challenge the order. Only unauthorised structures — the court has identified these — would be immune to these conditions and any violation of the order, the wise justices have warned, would lead to the recovery of compensation from errant officials or contempt proceedings. Some important principles have been upheld in the process. The highest court has, for instance, reiterated the principle of separation of powers and reminded the executive that it cannot be judge, jury and executioner. The centrality of due process as well as the importance of accountability of public officials have been underlined. The judgment would also serve as a shield against mischievous attempts to undermine the right to shelter that is included in the right to a life of dignity that is secured by Article 21.

It is not possible to assess this judicial intervention without acknowledging the broader political context of the matter. States ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party — Uttar Pradesh being the principal example — have been enthusiastic proponents of bulldozer justice. A report by Amnesty International has revealed that five states — four of them ruled by the BJP — had bulldozed 128 structures that mostly belonged to Muslims between April and June 2022. The BJP, having been made to eat humble pie, has welcomed the judgment; the Opposition will undoubtedly extract political capital out of it. But those who have lost their homes as a result of such a transgression are yet to receive fair compensation. This is a matter of urgency that needs to be looked into at the earliest.