Bulldozer Culture and the Supreme Court’s intervention
Context:
Recently, the Supreme Court of India held that the arbitrary demolition of homes and properties as a form of punishment and states becoming judges is a naked display of’might is right’.
- The ruling addressed the issues of “bulldozer culture,” in which state authorities have been demolishing properties without following established legal procedures.
- The Supreme Court also gave guidelines to curb these demolition activities without due process.
Relevance:
GS-02 (Indian Polity)
Dimensions of the Article
- About the Issue
- Significance of This Judgement
- Way Forward
About the Issue
- Certain states resorted to demolishing houses of people accused of offences.
- This activity was largely criticised for using bulldozers as a state-driven tool to inflict collective punishment.
- These actions were carried out without due process under the guise of removing “encroachments.”
- This pattern of using demolitions as a punishment to penalise alleged offenders without any legal framework was in direct opposition to the principles of justice and the separation of powers.
Significance of This Judgement
- The Supreme Court’s recent judgement is a significant step towards protecting citizens’ rights and upholding the rule of law.
- By issuing enforceable guidelines, the Court has created a safeguard against unchecked demolitions.
- The Bench, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasised the importance of accountability and transparency in demolition cases.
- The Court mandated a 15-day notice period, with all notices to be served through registered post, specifying the grounds for action and detailing alleged violations.
- Additionally, a personal hearing, signed inspection reports by witnesses, and a reasoned order are now mandatory.
- Importantly, the judgement requires the establishment of a digital portal within three months to host all notices, responses, and orders, ensuring transparency and public accessibility.
Way Forward
- Strict and vigilant monitoring is the key to upholding this judgement.
- Since the court has now made officials accountable for any violations, disciplinary actions should be effective.
- While necessary demolitions (such as those related to waterbodies, railway lines, or public spaces) are exempt from this framework, local bodies have a responsibility to ensure these exceptions aren’t misused.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this judgement is another milestone in safeguarding individual rights and the doctrine of rule of law. By insisting accountability on officials and by protecting the rights of the people, the ruling ensures that governance operates within the bounds of justice and due process.
Related Posts
