Author: Mandeep Singh, IIM Rohtak
Abstract
This comprehensive article delves into the dichotomy between politically motivated “bulldozer justice”—executive-led demolitions as punishment—and the principles of constitutional morality, rooted in due process, dignity, and rule of law. The recent jurisprudence led by CJI Gavai has reaffirmed the right to shelter under Article 21, issued pan-India guidelines, enforced compensation, and restored judicial oversight.
To the Point
“Bulldozer justice” refers to demolitions of homes of accused individuals—bypassing legal process—as punitive or symbolic gestures.
These actions infringe Articles 14, 21, 300A, and undermine the basic structure doctrine.
The Supreme Court (2024–2025), led by CJI Gavai, issued binding guidelines under Article 142, forbidding arbitrary demolitions and upholding the right to shelter.
Violating these norms attracts contempt proceedings, compensation orders, and the requirement for judicial oversight.
Use of Legal Jargon
Constitutional morality – as envisioned by D.D. Basu; the inner voice of the Constitution that restrains populist state action.
Procedural due process – “procedure established by law” under Art 21 requiring fairness.
Arbitrariness – proscribed by Art 14, per Puttaswamy (2017).
Basic structure doctrine – Kesavananda Bharati (1973); ensures separation of powers, rule of law.
Executive overreach vs. judicial review – balance essential for democracy.
Punitive populism – Punitive populism is a term used by the judiciary to condemn politically motivated behaviour.
The Proof
Violation of Due Process & Right to Shelter
• The Supreme Court highlighted in a recent ruling that “arbitrary demolitions… violate the rule of law and the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21.”
Pan-India Guidelines Issued
Through a November 2024 ruling, civil authority demolitions without judicial sanction, notice, hearing, videographic documentation, or compensation were barred.
The bench explicitly warned that any further bulldozing in defiance of these norms would amount to criminal contempt of court.
Protection from Discriminatory Enforcement
The Court condemned selective use of bulldozers in communal riot aftermaths—esp. targeting Muslim communities—as unconstitutional collective punishment.
Compensation & Restitution Mandated
Separate rulings have ordered ₹10 lakh compensation for homeowners in Prayagraj, recognizing shelter as a fundamental right and holding officials financially accountable.
Case Laws
Case
Summary
Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985)
Right to life (Art 21) includes livelihood & shelter; evictions must follow fair procedure.
Kesavananda Bharati (1973)
Declared basic structure doctrine; upheld separation of powers & rule of law.
Puttaswamy v. UoI (2017)
Arbitrary actions violate Art 14/21; reinforced “procedure established by law” and dignity principles.
Gavai & Viswanathan Bench (2024–25)
Declared bulldozer demolitions unconstitutional; laid down guidelines, contempt penalties, restitution, and compensation.
Comparative Jurisprudence
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
Requires that any forced eviction or relocation adhere to reasonableness, proportionality, adequate re-housing, and judicial oversight—standards aligned with Gilbert Grootboom’s 2000 judgment by South Africa. India’s Supreme Court has borrowed from these principles to protect shelter rights.
In-Depth Analysis
Unilateral Executive Action violates the doctrine of separation of powers; it functions like judicial punishment executed without trial.
Procedural Fairness: Dwellers must be served notice, given an opportunity to contest, and judicially reviewed—similar to eviction laws under municipal statutes.
Proportionality Doctrine: Even illegal constructions must be addressed proportionally—not reflexively destroyed. Crooked enforcement amounts to excess of executive power.
Compensatory Redress: Compensation backs up the constitutional recognition of shelter as a Habeas corpus for property; it ensures real relief.
Dignity and Equality: Bulldozer demolitions are often communal profiling tools—rising disproportionately against Muslims or poor residents—violating Articles 14 and 21.
Legislative & Policy Imperatives
Statutory Clarity
Central and state laws should explicitly require notice, hearing, judicial sign-off, and availability of alternative housing or compensation.
Oversight Mechanisms
Demolition decisions must be published online, under judicial oversight, with multi-stakeholder review.
Capacity Building
Officials should receive legal training on constitutional rights and the consequences of contempt.
Community Involvement
NGOs, legal aid groups, and local councils should assist vulnerable residents in challenging demolition orders.
Speedy Remedies
Mobile benches or prioritized judicial review for shelter-related cases would provide timely justice.
Conclusion
“Bulldozer justice” is a frontal assault on constitutional doctrine and democratic integrity. Such power improperly used as political theater does violence to due process, equality, and dignity. The rule of law has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court’s interventions, which include recalling Olga Tellis, Puttaswamy, and the basic structure doctrine. Bulldozer actions cannot be sustained unless they adhere to comprehensive safeguarding measures: judicial sanction, prior notice, fair hearings, documentation, and compensation. Upholding the right to shelter affirms our nation’s commitment to rights-based governance and constitutional morality.
FAQS
Q1: What exactly is “bulldozer justice”?
A: Political/administrative demolitions of properties—bypassing legal protocols—as punitive or display justice. It displays communal bias and executive overreach.
Q2: Is right to shelter a fundamental right?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court has long held shelter as part of Article 21 via cases like Olga Tellis (1985). This status is confirmed by the 2024–2025 rulings, which provide enforceable protections.
Q3: What are SC’s demolition guidelines?
A: They mandate:
15-day show-cause notice
Posting reasons and hearing
Require videography
Digital display of orders
Restitution/compensation
Judicial oversight, non-compliance → contempt of court
Q4: Why are bulldozer actions unconstitutional?
A: They violate Art 14 (equality), Art 21 (life with dignity), Art 300A (property), the basic structure, and rule of law.
Q5: What remedies exist for affected homeowners?
A: Affected individuals are entitled to:
Stay on judicial review
Compensation (e.g., ₹10 lakh awarded in Prayagraj)
Restoration orders and potential contempt action against officials.
Sources
Supreme Court & Executive guidelines:
CJI Gavai slams bulldozer justice… Article 21 violation thenewsminute.com+9indianexpress.com+9lawchakra.in+9
Illegal demolitions violate rule of law; pan-India guidelines issued youtube.com+11thenewsminute.com+11indianexpress.com+11
Ex: “Executive cannot be judge, jury, and executioner” m.thewire.in+2indianexpress.com+2timesofindia.indiatimes.com+2
Conceptual & scholarly critique:
“Bulldozer justice” as punitive populism against minorities en.wikipedia.org+2theloop.ecpr.eu+2timesofindia.indiatimes.com+2
Landmark case law:
Olga Tellis v. BMC (1985) – right to livelihood and shelter
Puttaswamy v. UoI (2017) – arbitrariness remedy, dignity
Basic structure doctrine – Kesavananda Bharati (1973) en.wikipedia.org
Comparative & international law:
ICESCR and Grootboom jurisprudence
