In a significant legal decision, the Supreme Court of India has outlawed the controversial practice of 'bulldozer justice,' which involved the demolition of homes and businesses in retaliation against marginalized groups, particularly Muslims, following communal conflicts. The ruling challenges years of state-sanctioned violence and aims to ensure due process and protect the rights of minorities.**
Indian Supreme Court Declares Ban on Retaliatory Demolitions Known as 'Bulldozer Justice'**
Indian Supreme Court Declares Ban on Retaliatory Demolitions Known as 'Bulldozer Justice'**
Landmark ruling aims to curb state-sponsored destruction of properties without due process, targeting marginalized communities.**
India's Supreme Court has declared a ban on the widely criticized practice known as "bulldozer justice," which involved the demolition of properties as a form of punitive action predominantly against Muslims. This ruling, announced on November 13, 2024, comes in response to the increasing instances of state administrations razing homes and businesses without due process, often following communal clashes or acts of dissent.
Over recent years, particularly under the governance of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party, such demolitions have become a recurring method of retribution, often justified by allegations of illegal construction. The court characterized this practice as reminiscent of a "lawless state of affairs" where the executive branch assumes judicial powers to determine guilt and administer punishment, which it found unconstitutional.
A prominent recent case highlighted involved the demolition of properties in Haryana, which disproportionately affected Muslim residents following violent clashes initiated by a radical Hindu procession. The higher court emphasized that the government cannot punish individuals without a judicial ruling, reinforcing the principle of due process.
Although the ruling has been praised by human rights activists as a crucial measure against institutional discrimination, uncertainty surrounds its actual enforcement. Critics note the normalization of such practices over the years, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh, where the chief minister has branded himself as "Bulldozer Baba," thereby politicizing the demolition strategy to attract voters.
Advocates, including Amnesty International's secretary-general Agnès Callamard, view this ruling as a vital step in combating growing discrimination and violence against minorities. Meanwhile, experts such as former UN rapporteur Miloon Kothari emphasize the detrimental long-term effects of these demolitions on communities, stripping them of housing, economic opportunities, education, and health services.
The ruling has been met with cautious optimism, as rights advocates hope it signifies a reduction in state-sanctioned actions against vulnerable populations, but the effectiveness of such legal frameworks will depend on their implementation in practice.
