Bulldozer Justice: The ‘King’ can't enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

“अपना घर हो, अपना आंगन हो,

इस ख्वाब में हर कोई जीता है।

इंसान के दिल की ये चाहत है,

कि एक घर का सपना कभी न छूटे।”

These evocative lines by Hindi poet Pradeep, quoted by Justice BR Gavai in the Supreme Court’s judgment, capture the universal yearning for a home—a space of safety, dignity, and belonging. A home is more than bricks and mortar; it is a sanctuary where dreams take root and identities flourish. Yet, for countless marginalized communities in India, this fundamental human aspiration has been shattered by the cold, unyielding force of the bulldozer.

The Supreme Court’s judgment on “bulldozer justice” is a stark reminder of the grave injustices inflicted by the arbitrary demolition of homes and livelihoods. While the bulldozer has become a potent symbol of state power, its indiscriminate use against vulnerable populations represents a betrayal of the constitutional promise of justice, equality, and fraternity. This practice, celebrated by some as swift action against lawlessness, is in reality a disturbing manifestation of state lawlessness itself—one that erodes the rule of law and deepens social divides.

For the marginalized—street vendors, slum dwellers, and informal workers—the bulldozer is not just a machine; it is a harbinger of loss and despair. These communities, already excluded from formal urban planning, exist in a precarious zone of “illegality,” where their mere presence is deemed a violation. The demolitions carried out under the guise of anti-encroachment drives disproportionately target these groups, stripping them of their homes and livelihoods without due process.

The imagery of the bulldozer erasing entire neighborhoods encapsulates a troubling shift in governance. It signals a preference for spectacle over substance, where state power is exercised through force rather than dialogue or reform. Far from addressing systemic issues like housing shortages or urban inequities, such actions exacerbate them, leaving the most vulnerable to bear the brunt of the state’s failures.

The constitutional framework of India, much like Lord Denning’s celebrated observation in Southam v. Smout, upholds the sanctity of the rule of law. As Denning famously stated:

“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – the storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. So be it – unless he has justification by law.”

In the Indian context, this principle has been flagrantly disregarded in the execution of bulldozer justice. Notices are rarely served, hearings are bypassed, and demolitions are often carried out in retaliation against political dissent or as collective punishment against marginalized groups. The absence of “justification by law” in these cases exposes a governance model that prioritizes power over accountability and dominance over justice.

The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights a critical failure of civil services and police, institutions tasked with upholding constitutional values. Instead of ensuring fair and impartial governance, these institutions have become complicit in enabling unlawful demolitions. Their actions—or inactions—undermine public trust in the state and diminish the credibility of democratic governance.

This systemic failure is not merely a lapse in procedure; it reflects a deeper malaise. By weaponizing the bulldozer against the powerless, the state erodes the fundamental principles of equality and justice. Such actions signal a breakdown of constitutional morality, where institutions designed to protect the weak are instead wielded as instruments of oppression.

Dr. BR Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, emphasized fraternity as the soul of the democratic framework. Fraternity demands that citizens view one another as equals, bound by a shared commitment to dignity and justice. Yet, in the context of bulldozer justice, this principle has been tragically forgotten.

The spectacle of demolitions is often met with public celebration, as citizens cheer the destruction of their neighbor’s property. This misplaced schadenfreude betrays a dangerous erosion of fraternity, where the suffering of “the other” is viewed as a spectacle rather than a shared injustice. Such attitudes not only deepen social divides but also legitimize state lawlessness, creating a vicious cycle of violence and alienation.

The normalization of bulldozer justice poses an existential threat to India’s democratic ethos. It represents a shift towards authoritarian governance, where the state’s power is exercised not through the rule of law but through the raw display of force. This approach undermines the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law, reducing vulnerable communities to mere targets of state action.

In a pluralistic society, the state’s legitimacy rests on its ability to act impartially and inclusively. Bulldozer justice, by disproportionately targeting specific groups, fractures social cohesion and fosters mistrust between communities and the state. Over time, this erosion of trust weakens democratic institutions, making it harder to uphold the principles of justice and accountability.

The Supreme Court’s intervention is a necessary corrective, but it must be the beginning of a broader effort to dismantle the machinery of bulldozer justice. Structural reforms are essential to ensure that state actions adhere to constitutional principles and the rule of law.

Policymakers must address the root causes of urban inequities, ensuring that all citizens have access to adequate housing and livelihoods. Civil society must mobilize against the normalization of state lawlessness, holding both the government and public discourse accountable. The media, too, has a vital role in challenging narratives that glorify bulldozer justice and amplifying the voices of those affected by it.

Most importantly, citizens must reclaim their role as custodians of constitutional values. This means rejecting the politics of division and standing in solidarity with those whose rights are under threat. It means recognizing that justice cannot be built on the ruins of another’s home.

The Supreme Court’s judgment on bulldozer justice is a clarion call to defend the foundational principles of democracy. It reminds us that a home is not merely a structure but a symbol of dignity, security, and belonging. The lines of Hindi poet Pradeep echo this sentiment, urging us to protect the dream of a home that is central to human existence.

“अपना घर हो, अपना आंगन हो,

इस ख्वाब में हर कोई जीता है।”

This dream, however, cannot survive in a society where state power operates unchecked and constitutional morality is eroded. As citizens, we must ask ourselves what kind of democracy we wish to uphold: one that thrives on fear and division or one that guarantees dignity and justice for all. The answer to this question will shape the future of India’s constitutional journey.