Initiated in Uttar Pradesh and rapidly adopted in states including Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Delhi, ‘Bulldozer Justice’ has become a household term in India. Coined by the media, this phrase describes a state-led practice of demolishing properties—deemed “illegal constructions”—belonging to individuals accused in criminal cases. But who are these individuals, and is this approach justified?
The Problem with Bulldozer Justice
Recently, in the case of In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash (2024), the Supreme Court reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing a house under the pretext of “road widening” without issuing prior notice. The court found the government guilty of high-handedness, declared the act illegal and directed the state to pay ₹25 lakhs in interim compensation to the affected family. The ruling highlighted key constitutional and legal concerns surrounding the practice of bulldozer justice.
This judgment raises critical questions like,
Who bears the penalty? Ultimately, it is the taxpayers who pay for the state’s mistakes.
What is the accountability? Does it deter the authorities from resorting to such high-handed actions further?
Why bulldozer justice is not justified
Eroding Democratic Principles
Indian democracy is founded on principles like equality, the rule of law, and separation of powers. These pillars ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. Bulldozer Justice undermines these principles by allowing the executive to take over the judiciary’s role, effectively bypassing due process.
This practice not only blurs the distinction between accused and guilty but also raises questions about the fairness of our justice system. The law follows the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Yet, these demolitions target, rather say, punish, not just the convicted but often those accused—without trial or evidence.
A Slippery Slope Towards Lawlessness
Is Bulldozer Justice any different from police encounters, mob justice or gunda raj? It rather represents a troubling normalization of lawlessness. Also, by punishing entire families who might co-own or live in the demolished properties—the authority, here, perpetuates collective punishment, a concept alien to any fair legal system.
This approach takes us back to colonial-era tactics, where oppressive measures dehumanized individuals under state control. As highlighted in Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 753), such actions are relics of a time when dignity and justice were denied to marginalized groups.
Seeking Public Approval or Delivering Justice
There’s a saying in law that justice must not just be done, it must be seen as done. In my humble opinion, Bulldozer Justice is less about enforcing the law and more about garnering public support. It creates a spectacle that appeals to a section of the population for ‘they see justice happening,’ regardless of it bypassing constitutional safeguards.
In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, the Supreme Court stated that the executive cannot usurp the judiciary’s role. The bench of Justice Gavai and Justice Viswanathan noted that demolishing properties without due process is unconstitutional and violates the rule of law. And that a judicial body alone has the authority to declare someone guilty and impose penalties.
Firstly, because the executive cannot declare a person guilty, as this process is the fundamental aspect of the judicial review. Only on the basis of the accusations, if the executive demolishes the property/ies of such an accused without following due process of law, it would strike at the basic principle of rule of law which is not permissible. The executive cannot become a judge and decide that a person accused is guilty and, therefore, punish him by demolishing his residential/commercial property/ies. Such an act of the executive would be transgressing its limits.
How justified is Judicial Justice
The greater the power to decide, the higher the responsibility to be just and fair. Every officer in the hierarchy of the State, by virtue of their position as a public officer or public servant, is accountable both to the State as well as the public. Hence, decisions must be guided by fairness, transparency, and due process.
A trial must be impartial, free from any external pressure or public clamour, and the legal order must be regularly maintained, ensuring the rights of all parties involved. An accused cannot be declared guilty or punished unless proven so beyond a reasonable doubt before a court of law. And it is equally important that the consequences of alleged crimes do not unjustly affect those who are not involved.
But wait, we do gain morality points here but what about the practicality?
Verdict of the Court
In the Manoj Tibrewal case, the court strongly criticized the actions of the authorities, describing them as “high-handed.” Justice Pardiwala emphasized the unlawfulness of demolishing houses without giving the owners proper notice or time to vacate.
In consonance with the observation, the Court ordered compensation for the victims and directed an inquiry against the officials responsible for the demolitions. It also issued a set of guidelines to ensure that demolitions are conducted in compliance with due process, including giving the property owner 15 days to rectify the situation before any demolition takes place. If the demolition violates any court orders, the responsible officers will be held personally liable.
Further, to prevent the issue of backdating, the Court looped in the role of the Collector/DM and emphasized the use of technology to streamline the process. Once the show cause notice is served, it must be immediately communicated to the District Magistrate via email. An auto-generated reply confirming the receipt of the notice will also be issued from the office of the DM. This measure ensures transparency and accountability in the process.
These actions by the Supreme Court represent a laudable move towards upholding due process and ensuring that no person’s property is destroyed without just cause and appropriate legal procedures. But this is not it. I’d rather call it the surface-level resolution for the problem is bigger.
The bigger problem
The court’s judgment emphasizes the need to adhere to municipal laws—ensuring proper notice, fair hearings, and timely demolition orders. Yet, the question is— can the system deliver on this promise, the system, the timing, the procedure? The sad truth is that our system, though built on sound principles, often falls short when it comes to implementation, making it all a vicious cycle.
Consider property disputes, which can drag on for 5, 15, or even 30 years. Or the plight of undertrials: despite clear legal provisions limiting detention periods, Indian prisons remain overcrowded, with undertrials constituting 75% of the incarcerated population. Is this justifiable in a nation governed by the rule of law?
The courts, too, are overwhelmed. In Delhi alone, 266,000 new criminal cases were added in 2024, pushing the backlog to 1.2 million—second only to West Bengal. Across India, over 66 million cases are delayed, many due to a lack of advocates, judges, and functional courtrooms. As submitted in the Lok Sabha, there are 21 Judges per million population, that too in accordance with the 2011 census.
Even everyday matters get ensnared in bureaucracy. Something as basic as changing the name on an electricity bill can require countless phone calls, visits, and perhaps even something more. When accessing basic facilities becomes this arduous, how can citizens be expected to trust a system that seems indifferent to their struggles?
The concept of the rule of law—justice that is fair, seen, and reliable—becomes meaningless if people can’t see it in action. It’s time to confront a bitter truth: due process, a cornerstone of democracy, often exists more in theory than in practice. If citizens believe their grievances will be met with indifference or delay, how can we expect them to approach the system with faith? Ensuring justice isn’t just about enforcing the law; it’s about upholding the promise of fairness, transparency, and timely redress.
I personally condemn any authority’s overreach, like in the present case because these acts, no matter how “swift,” undermine the foundation of the rule of law and give way to exploitation. Yet, it’s crucial to address that a significant portion of our population praises such actions, viewing them as a form of “speedy justice.” As brevity puts it, when law isn’t accessible, lawlessness becomes the norm.
The onus therefore falls on the rightful authorities to shift this narrative. By ensuring due process and demonstrating accountability, we can reaffirm the public’s trust in lawful, democratic processes.
No one can suppose that the executive will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us. You may be sure that they will sometimes do things which they ought not to do : and will not do things that they ought to do. But if and when wrongs are thereby suffered by any of us what is the remedy? Our procedure for securing our personal freedom is efficient, our procedure for preventing the abuse of power is not. Just as the pick and shovel is no longer suitable for the winning of coal, so also the procedure of mandamus, certiorari, and actions on the case are not suitable for the winning of freedom in the new age. They must be replaced by new and up-to date machinery, by declarations, injunctions and actions for negligence…. This is not the task for Parliament … the courts must do this
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa & Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 746
Conclusion
Due process is more than a principle—it is a promise. A promise that the law will serve the people, not just theoretically but in practice. When that promise is broken, the justice system loses its essence. What we need is not just rhetoric about fairness but a system that delivers justice consistently, transparently, and equitably. Without such evolution, the dream of a truly just society will remain just that—a dream.
As rightly observed, the Rule of law is integral to and necessary for democracy and good governance. Attempts to democratize without a robust legal system often lead to social disorder. In India, the principle of separation of powers serves as a crucial check-and-balance mechanism. It is supposed to ensure that no branch of government overreaches its jurisdiction, with the others holding it accountable. Each action of one arm of the government affects another, and therefore there is a crucial need to optimally utilise the check-and-balance system, as again, done in the present case.
For democracy to thrive, the legal system must uphold its promise to the people. Transparent processes, consistent accountability, and meaningful reforms are essential. The goal isn’t just to enforce the rule of law but to restore public faith in its ability to protect rights, uphold dignity, and deliver justice.
Only then can we build a system where justice is not just done but is seen to be done.