‘Bulldozer Justice’ Under Judicial Scrutiny: Due Process and Constitutional Limits

Why in News ?

Recent observations by the Allahabad High Court have renewed scrutiny of the practice termed “bulldozer justice” in Uttar Pradesh, where properties of individuals accused of crimes are demolished soon after allegations surface.

Despite clear directions issued in 2024 by the Supreme Court of India against unlawful demolitions, such actions continue to raise concerns about due process, presumption of innocence, and constitutional safeguards.

Background & Context

“Bulldozer justice” refers to the demolition of properties belonging to accused persons — often immediately after the registration of an FIR — under municipal or urban planning laws.

Critics argue that such demolitions invert the constitutional sequence:

Allegation → Investigation → Adjudication → Punishment

Instead, executive action precedes judicial determination, raising questions under:

• Article 14 (Equality before law)
• Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty)
• Separation of powers doctrine

The debate highlights tensions between administrative enforcement and constitutional due process in a democratic system.

The Present Episode Before the Allahabad High Court

A family from Hamirpur district approached the court after municipal authorities threatened demolition of their home and commercial property following an FIR against a relative.

Key facts:

• Petitioners were not accused.
• Municipal notices were issued soon after the FIR.
• Property was sealed pending demolition.

Court’s Observations

1. Punishment Is a Judicial Function

The Division Bench reaffirmed that criminal punishment lies exclusively within the judiciary’s domain, not the executive.

2. Constitutional Questions Raised

The court framed critical questions, including:

• Whether such demolitions violate Supreme Court guidelines.
• Whether they infringe Articles 14 and 21.
• Whether municipal laws are being used as instruments of punishment.

Legal Framework Governing Demolitions

Under statutes such as:

• Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959
• Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

Authorities may remove unauthorised constructions. However, due process requires:

1. Identification of violation
2. Written notice stating grounds
3. Opportunity to respond
4. Consideration of objections
5. Reasoned order
6. Availability of appeal or regularisation

These laws are regulatory — not punitive — in nature.

Supreme Court’s Guidance (2024)

In In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024), the Supreme Court held:

• Property cannot be demolished merely because its owner is accused of a crime.
• Criminal guilt must be established through judicial adjudication.
• Municipal powers cannot be used as parallel instruments of punishment.

Substance Over Form

Courts examine:

• Timing of demolition notices
• Link between FIR and demolition
• Targeting of relatives or associates

If intent appears punitive rather than regulatory, the action may be unconstitutional.

Concept of “Colourable Exercise of Power”

When lawful authority is used to achieve an impermissible objective (e.g., punishment without trial), it constitutes a colourable exercise of power.

Such misuse:

• Blurs separation of powers
• Undermines presumption of innocence
• Converts administrative discretion into punishment

Larger Constitutional Implications

1. Due Process and Fair Procedure

Article 21 protects individuals from deprivation of life and liberty without procedure established by law.

2. Presumption of Innocence

An accused remains innocent until proven guilty.

3. Separation of Powers

Punishment is a judicial function; the executive enforces law but cannot impose sanctions without trial.

4. Irreversible Harm

Demolition can permanently destroy homes, livelihoods, and social standing — even if the accused is later acquitted.

5. Public Trust in Governance

Perceived arbitrariness may weaken faith in rule-based administration.

A Necessary Balance Between Regulation and Rights

Enforcing Urban Laws

Municipal authorities must act against illegal constructions to maintain urban order.

Constitutional Limits

However, enforcement must:

• Be neutral and non-discriminatory
• Follow procedural safeguards
• Avoid punitive motivations

Distinguishing Regulation from Punishment

Bulldozers are tools of urban governance — not instruments of criminal adjudication.

Significance of the Ongoing Judicial Scrutiny

• Reinforcement of Rule of Law
  • Ensures executive power operates within constitutional boundaries.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights
  • Prevents arbitrary deprivation of property and livelihood.
• Strengthening Judicial Oversight
  • Reasserts judiciary’s role in safeguarding constitutional morality.
• Democratic Accountability
  • Encourages transparency and reasoned administrative action.
• Clarification of Municipal Powers
  • Defines limits of regulatory authority vis-à-vis criminal justice.