In raising questions about the legality of the demolition of houses belonging to alleged offenders, the Supreme Court of India has articulated a valid and widespread concern about the use of the bulldozer as a form of retribution. The targeted demolition of Muslim houses has become part of the governance model in BJP-ruled States and if the Court can end the impunity with which these extra-legal measures are used by those in power, it would be a wholesome intervention. As Justice B.R. Gavai, heading a Division Bench with Justice K.V. Viswanathan, remarked, the law indeed does not permit anyone’s home to be demolished just because they are accused in a case, and it cannot happen even in the case of a convict. The judiciary cannot be oblivious to the political symbolism that the bulldozer has acquired as an instrument of collective punishment inflicted on those the authorities label as rioters. There are instances of the houses of named suspects being demolished, without regard to the fact that the rest of the family may have nothing to do with the offence. However, considering that local laws do permit removal of encroachments and unauthorised constructions, the Bench has articulated its intention to lay down uniform guidelines on a pan-India basis to streamline the procedure for action against such structures. Observations by Justice Viswanathan indicate that these may involve the manner in which unauthorised structures are to be identified, notices issued to those concerned and a fair hearing given to them before any action.
It is here that the Court should tread carefully. The laying down of guidelines should not send out a message that the obvious correlation between incidents of communal violence, and the demolitions that follow them, can be blurred by administrative trickery. In many cases backdated eviction notices are produced to justify these demolitions, even as obvious gloating over the inhabitants’ plight betrays the political and communal motive. The idea of digitalising eviction notices may address the problem of backdated notices, but it may not be possible to make the transition in all parts of the country. The real question that the Court should grapple with is whether the claim that only encroachments are being demolished is enough to justify the egregious violation of the rule of law and absence of due process in several recent instances in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana and Delhi. It ought to be clear by now that the ruling party in these States seeks to gain political mileage by giving the impression that the regime is acting sternly against anti-social elements, even while thinly masking the blatantly communal action by passing it off as an anti-encroachment drive.
