📰
Indian Politics
The Demolition of Due Process: Bulldozer Justice and the Erosion of the Rule of Law
The use of administrative demolitions against individuals accused but not convicted of crimes has become a recurring practice in several states. The legal and constitutional analysis is unambiguous, even when the politics is popular.
Over the past several years, multiple state governments have demolished the homes or properties of individuals accused — not convicted — of crimes ranging from communal violence to ordinary criminal offences, citing building code violations as the legal justification for demolitions that follow closely on the heels of the accusation itself. The pattern has acquired a colloquial name — “bulldozer justice” — and has proven politically popular in several states even as it has drawn sustained criticism from constitutional scholars and, eventually, the Supreme Court itself.
The Legal Sleight of Hand
The official justification for these demolitions is almost always municipal: the structure violated building codes, lacked proper permits, or encroached on public land. These violations are frequently genuine in a country where a very large share of urban construction technically violates some municipal regulation. The legal sleight of hand lies in the timing and selectivity — demolitions that target the homes of the accused, occurring within days of a criminal allegation, while structurally identical violations elsewhere go unaddressed for years, cannot credibly be described as routine municipal enforcement.
70%+
Estimated share of urban construction in many Indian cities that exists in some form of technical violation of building codes — making selective enforcement, rather than enforcement itself, the central legal and constitutional question.
What the Constitution Actually Requires
India’s Constitution, through Article 21, guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or property except through procedure established by law. That procedure includes notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a right of appeal before demolition — safeguards that have been systematically bypassed in many high-profile cases, where notices were served and properties demolished within timeframes too short for any meaningful legal challenge.
This is not a novel or contested legal principle. It is settled administrative law, reaffirmed across decades of jurisprudence on natural justice. The use of demolition as an extrajudicial punishment for an accusation — rather than as a neutral instrument of municipal regulation — collapses the distinction between executive action and judicial punishment that is foundational to constitutional governance.
A government that can punish an accusation as if it were a conviction has effectively abolished the presumption of innocence through administrative means, without ever amending a single law that enshrines it.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention and Its Limits
The Supreme Court has issued directions establishing that demolitions cannot proceed as a punitive measure tied to criminal accusations and has mandated procedural safeguards including prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. This intervention is a meaningful check, but its real-world effect depends on consistent enforcement by lower courts and a political culture willing to treat due process as non-negotiable rather than as an inconvenience to be selectively honoured. The popularity of bulldozer justice with sections of the public — who see it as decisive action against crime — makes that consistency politically difficult, even where it is legally clear.
