Can’t bulldoze due process

The Supreme Court’s sharp disapproval of the use of earthmovers to demolish the homes of those accused, especially in cases where there is considerable public outrage, has come not a moment too soon. The troubling practice — where authorities clearly step outside the bounds of due process and don a retributive avatar to destroy homes and properties of people not declared guilty by any institution — might be a populist move, but it frustrates the principle of natural justice.

A top court bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan raised a string of valid questions, including how a house could be demolished simply because someone is accused of a crime, noting that even a conviction does not justify such an action without following proper legal procedures. They highlighted the need for standardised guidelines across all states to prevent arbitrary demolitions, pointing out that even in cases of unauthorised constructions, the process must be conducted in accordance with the law.

Unfortunately, despite the clear violation of rights, the practice of demolition — oxymoronically termed “bulldozer justice” — has only become popular across the board. In a bid to look tough on crime, state and local governments have used the heavy-handed tactic to dispense quick “justice” by demolishing properties even as judicial proceedings are pending before courts. This has created a perception that the authorities employ such extra-judicial strategies selectively — an appearance that is damaging both for the criminal justice system as well as administration.

The apex court is right in asking questions of a practice that has no concrete footing in the law. Its proposed guidelines could serve as a crucial check against the trend and prompt authorities to act more responsibly, and not resort to rabble-rousing tactics. These guidelines could establish a uniform legal framework across states, ensuring that any such action is grounded in due process and not driven by extra-judicial motives. They will also serve as a reminder to the executive that the question of tardy justice needs honest and painful antidotes, not populist band-aids

But once these guidelines come, their implementation will be key. After all, states are incentivised to dispense such “justice” and the structural problems with the judicial system mean that timely relief can be difficult. The top court will need to institute a vigilant and transparent mechanism by which any violation of the guidelines can be reported and acted against. Only this can rein in this extra-judicial practice.

Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it’s all here, just a click away! –Login Now!