Old wine, new bottle

Sir — Finding partners on the internet has redefined dating. After ‘yap-trapping’, ‘freak-matching’ and ‘grim keeping’, the latest online dating trend that has gained traction is ‘throning’ — dating someone who boosts one’s reputation. Instead of love or attraction, the sole reason behind zeroing in on a prospective partner is his or her social clout — usually measured in terms of the number of followers one has on social media platforms. But ‘throning’ is just a modern twist to the old dating lingo of gold-digging, which denigrates women. It is hoped that the new label will at least be free of
gender bias.

Neerja Bose, Mumbai

Justice, at last

Sir — The use of bulldozers to demolish the properties of accused and convicts is unconstitutional. The authorities have been using the bulldozer to intimidate Muslims. It is thus heartening that the Supreme Court has laid down a series of guidelines that will ensure institutional accountability and curb retributive demolitions by State authorities (“Brakes on ‘lawless’ bulldozer”, Nov 14).

But the apex court’s intervention has come a little too late. An estimated 1.5 lakh houses have been razed using this extrajudicial method. The Uttar Pradesh government’s frequent use of bulldozers had earned the chief minister, Yogi Adityanath, the tag of ‘bulldozer baba’. The verdict deals a blow to Adityanath’s divisive agenda.

Kamal Laddha, Bengaluru

Sir — The apex court must be thanked for coming out strongly against the states for bulldozing the properties of accused or convicted individuals (“Bull by horns”, Nov 15). Such actions violate constitutional justice. Bulldozer justice highlights the anti-poor, anti-minority nature of the Bharatiya Janata Party. It is incongruous for the executive to perform the function of the judiciary. The verdict sets strict stipulations for the authorities regarding the demolishing of structures, thereby guaranteeing the rights of individuals.

Ranganathan Sivakumar, Chennai

Sir — The Centre has remained a mute spectator to the illegal razing of properties of those belonging to the minority community by the governments of the BJP-ruled states. The individuals whose properties are torn down are often falsely accused and belong to the minority community. The court has stated that contempt proceedings would be initiated against errant officials upon the violation of its order. Only unauthorised constructions can be demolished.

Arun Gupta, Calcutta

Sir — Regardless of whether a person is an accused, the authorities do not have the right to demolish his or her home. The law necessitates that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. No punitive action can be initiated without a trial. The judiciary has the sole right to punish the accused. However, the court has limited the bulldozer action to unauthorised structures. Instead of limitations, there needs to be a full stop to bulldozer justice.

Sujit De, Calcutta

Sir — Describing bulldozer action as a “chilling sight”, the apex court has sternly warned the states from misusing their powers. The former Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, had condemned bulldozer action as “unacceptable”. His censure had little effect since the governments of many BJP-ruled states continued to commit this illegal act with impunity. It remains to be seen whether the court’s intervention will be able to rein in the divisive leaders.

Aayman Anwar Ali, Calcutta

Sir — The Supreme Court putting brakes on bulldozer justice is a relief. It is a significant step towards safeguarding the rule of law. But the real battle will be won when those who have lost their properties owing to bulldozer action receive their compensation.

Zakir Hussain, Kazipet, Telangana