Editorial: Putting bulldozers to rest

NEW DELHI: “How can a house be demolished just because a person is accused of a crime? It can’t be demolished even if he is a convict,” the judges asked in the Supreme Court on Monday. It’s a good question, better posed late than never. Six years since the Uttar Pradesh government and several copycat administrations thereafter added the bulldozer to their arsenal of repression—alongside other lethal weapons, the fake encounter and the illegal detention—it is welcome that the apex court of India has woken up to a form of injustice straight out of the tyrant’s playbook.

Even more welcome is the court’s decision to develop “pan-India guidelines” concerning the demolition of citizens’ properties by civic administrations. This is hopefully going to be a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over “bulldozer justice,” a term that has become code for the arbitrary and discriminatory use of earth movers to punish citizens for being Muslim, Dalit or poor. The Supreme Court's intervention recognises the need to develop a legal framework within which administrations can operate while performing their municipal duties but protecting the interests of vulnerable sections.

However, for this framework to be effective, the guidelines must be explicit and comprehensive. They must lay down clear definitions and protocols on what constitutes lawful demolition. They must specify exacting legal processes that must be followed before demolition can take place. These guidelines must be meticulously detailed to ensure that no loopholes are available for civic administrations to exploit. Expressly, they must proscribe any use of civic illegalities as cover for punitive action against vulnerable groups.

The pan-India guidelines to be developed by the Supreme Court must also spell out explicit punitive actions against civic officials who flout them. This could include penalties, fines, and even prison sentences for those who engage in prejudicial actions or misuse authority.

It is also important that there be compensation for evicted families. The guidelines must mandate full and adequate compensation for families that are unfairly evicted. This compensation should be court-mediated to ensure fairness and transparency. This compensation should also be extended to illegal squatters who are evicted, subject to economic criteria. Rehabilitation of evictees is as much a mandate of responsible government as efficient civic administration.

Furthermore, the guidelines should include specific instructions and protocols for the lower courts when hearing cases related to bulldozer justice. These protocols should emphasise the need to prioritise the rights of the poor and the marginalised, ensuring that they are not further victimised by the legal system. It is imperative that courts do not allow wealthy businessmen or politicians to manipulate legal processes to prolong their occupation of public land or buffer zones, as seen in the recent case in Hyderabad where affluent individuals exploited legal loopholes to evade demolition of their illegally acquired properties.

However, the Supreme Court also needs to recognise that the intricacies of legal process often militate against the interests of marginalised sections, and in fact, aid the well-heeled in exploiting loopholes to protect their illegal properties. As it became evident in the Hyderabad demolitions last week, rich realtors and political leaders used court stays to stall the demolition of their buildings standing on lake lands. Such misuse in fact injures the interests of ordinary citizens ultimately. Flash floods due to encroachment of water bodies have created mayhem for common citizens. The guidelines proposed by the Supreme Court must protect ordinary people’s interests from both sides.