Critical Analysis of Himanshu Mishra’s Article 'Bulldozer Justice' in India

By Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi, New Age Islam 29 March 2025 Bulldozer Actions: Violation of Citizens' Fundamental Rights Himanshu Mishra’s article published on The Wire Urdu website,Bulldozer “Justice”: Violation of Citizens' Fundamental Rights, raises crucial concerns about the increasing use of demolition as a punitive measure in India. The author critiques this practice as a violation of constitutional principles, international human rights, and the rule of law. This analysis aims to examine the legal, ethical, and social implications of this phenomenon while assessing the strengths and limitations of Mishra’s argument. Violation of the Rule of Law One of the central arguments in the article is that bulldozer “justice” directly undermines the rule of law, which is fundamental to any democratic system. Mishra rightly points out that the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 13, ensures that all governmental actions adhere to legal standards. The practice of demolishing homes without due legal process contradicts established legal precedents and municipal laws that require prior notification to property owners. The article effectively references the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab vs. Om Prakash, which affirms that even the state cannot act beyond the limits of the law. This is a strong argument, as it establishes that bulldozer actions set a dangerous precedent where executive power overrides legal checks and balances. However, the article could have strengthened this section by discussing more case laws where the judiciary has explicitly condemned extra-legal punitive demolitions. (Image Credit: SCC Times / Courtesy of From Files) Selective and Arbitrary Application Mishra highlights that bulldozer “justice” is often applied selectively, disproportionately targeting certain communities. This point raises concerns regarding bias in law enforcement and governance. The article argues that selective application of demolition policies violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Indian Constitution. This is an important aspect, as it underscores the potential misuse of executive powers to target vulnerable or marginalized groups under the pretext of law enforcement. However, while Mishra provides anecdotal evidence, the argument would benefit from statistical analysis or empirical data showing patterns of discrimination. Without concrete numbers, claims of selective targeting remain persuasive but not conclusively proven. Conflict with Constitutional Rights The article convincingly argues that bulldozer “justice” violates multiple constitutional rights, including: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): By rendering people homeless without due process, the state infringes upon the right to a dignified life. Article 300A (Right to Property): Demolishing homes without legal authorization directly contravenes property rights, which, although not a fundamental right, is still protected under constitutional law. A particularly compelling aspect of the article is its reference to Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, where the Supreme Court recognized the right to shelter as integral to the right to life. Mishra effectively uses this precedent to argue that mass demolitions, especially without resettlement plans, violate fundamental rights. However, the article could have explored government responses to these concerns, if any, to provide a more balanced perspective. International Legal Violations The article extends its critique to international human rights frameworks, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These treaties recognize housing as a basic human right. Mishra draws an apt comparison between bulldozer “justice” and collective punishment, which is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. (Courtesy of From Files) While this argument is compelling, the article does not explore whether India has ratified or implemented these international obligations in domestic law. A discussion on whether international legal frameworks can be enforced within the Indian legal system would have added depth to the analysis. Political and Social Implications Mishra suggests that bulldozer “justice” resembles tactics used by authoritarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany and North Korea, to suppress dissent. While this analogy is powerful, it is also extreme and could have been framed more objectively. Comparing India’s democratic government to totalitarian regimes might alienate some readers, even if the intent is to highlight systemic injustices. The article successfully contextualizes the issue within broader political narratives, showing how demolition drives are often linked to communal tensions or electoral strategies. However, it does not sufficiently explore the counterarguments made by proponents of these policies, such as claims that demolitions are aimed at curbing illegal encroachments. A nuanced discussion on urban planning challenges and legal eviction processes would have strengthened the argument. Judicial Interventions and Legal Remedies Mishra briefly discusses judicial interventions against bulldozer “justice”, such as the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Haldwani eviction case, where 50,000 residents were protected from forced displacement. While these rulings offer hope, the article could have elaborated on the judiciary’s inconsistent stance on such demolitions. Some courts have intervened to prevent demolitions, while others have upheld them under the guise of urban planning and anti-encroachment measures. A critical discussion on judicial accountability and the role of public interest litigation (PIL) in challenging illegal demolitions would have been beneficial. Himanshu Mishra’s article presents a compelling case against bulldozer “justice”, effectively linking it to constitutional violations, human rights concerns, and the erosion of democratic principles. The strongest aspects of the article include its legal grounding, reference to judicial precedents, and emphasis on human rights violations. However, the analysis could be further enriched by incorporating statistical data, exploring counterarguments, and discussing the government’s justifications or potential legal defences. Ultimately, the practice of bulldozer “justice” raises significant ethical and legal dilemmas. While addressing urban encroachments and illegal structures is a legitimate concern, due process must be upheld to prevent governance from descending into arbitrary rule. Mishra’s critique serves as a crucial reminder that the rule of law must be preserved to safeguard democracy and justice for all citizens. (Courtesy of From Files) Bulldozer “justice” whereby authorities use heavy machinery to demolish the homes of individuals accused of crimes or illegal activities, raises serious concerns from the perspectives of justice, ethics, morality, and human rights. This practice often bypasses due process, leaving affected individuals without legal recourse or an opportunity to defend themselves in court. It reflects a disturbing trend of extrajudicial punishment, where punishment is meted out without a trial or proper legal scrutiny, undermining the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Such actions are a violation of fundamental rights, as they punish entire families for the actions of an individual, often without clear evidence or a fair legal procedure. From an ethical and moral standpoint, bulldozer “justice” lacks compassion and a sense of humanity. Destroying the homes of people, including women, children, and the elderly, creates irreparable harm to innocent lives, leaving them homeless and vulnerable. It reflects a callous disregard for the dignity and well-being of individuals, violating the basic tenets of justice that require fairness and proportionality. Justice, in its truest sense, should aim to rehabilitate and reintegrate individuals into society, not strip them of their basic human needs. The widespread use of such punitive measures only deepens societal divisions, breeds fear, and erodes trust in the justice system, making it an unethical and morally questionable approach to addressing crime or illegal activity. … Ghulam Ghaus Siddiqi Dehlvi, a regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, is a classical Islamic scholar with a profound Sufi Madrasa background and expertise in English-Arabic-Urdu translation. His articles on New Age Islam can be accessed through the following link: https://www.newageislam.com/a/ghulam-ghaus?page=1 URL: https://www.newageislam.com/current-affairs/bulldozer-violation-fundamental-rights-india/d/135009 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism