Thoughts on "Bulldozer Justice"

Background

This issue originates from incidents in Uttar Pradesh, where the state government demolished houses of individuals accused of rioting. Some hailed this move as a significant step in law enforcement, while others criticized it, arguing that it infringed on individual liberties. Numerous writ petitions were filed against this practice, but "Bulldozer Justice" persisted, particularly in BJP-ruled states. Recently, the Supreme Court has declared such acts illegal, which has sparked widespread discussion.

The Conflict of Morality and Law

Everyone knows that such demolitions were illegal from the start, but the situation was clouded by a moral debate: the rights of rioters versus the rights of law-abiding citizens. It's basic legal knowledge that punishments not prescribed by law cannot be enforced. So why did the Uttar Pradesh government resort to bulldozing houses? The answer is simple—they wanted to instill fear in rioters, ensuring they wouldn’t riot again.

Riots are detrimental and have no place in a civilized society. However, addressing the issue effectively requires better policing, advanced riot control equipment, competent public prosecutors, and trained police personnel who can gather evidence to help courts deliver justice. Bulldozing houses is just a shortcut.

Punishment Through Process

In my opinion, the state governments always knew this act of bulldozing houses was illegal and would be challenged in court. However, demolishing a house in itself serves as a punishment. While courts may criticize public officers for such actions, they rarely face serious consequences, making this an easy way to punish without undertaking the hard work of improving policing in the state.

The Problem with Bulldozer Justice

A case from Madhya Pradesh comes to mind where a tribal man was degraded by an upper-caste man, and the latter’s house was bulldozed. Caste-related atrocities must be dealt with strongly, but in this case, the man was charged under the National Security Act, and his house was demolished as well. What wrong did his parents do to deserve their house being bulldozed? Even the community, traditionally supportive of the BJP, protested against this move by the BJP government. This is a clear example of how opening such floodgates can eventually affect everyone indiscriminately.

Excessive Bureaucracy and Misuse of Power

India suffers from excessive bureaucracy, and this is precisely why even simple actions often lead to the persecution of citizens. State leaders praised for such actions unintentionally encourage bureaucrats to view these shortcuts as paths to promotions, blindly supporting the state. In states where Bulldozer Justice prevails, even a minor disagreement with an IAS or IPS officer can result in threats of house demolition. This creates unnecessary fear among citizens and makes public offices even more unapproachable.

Personal Opinion

Bulldozing someone’s house is not justice, and I am not writing this to sympathize with rioters. Rioters should face strict punishment because riots, especially in polarized states, lead to loss of human lives. However, demolishing houses is akin to using a bucket to remove water from a sinking boat instead of repairing the hole causing the boat to sink in the first place.

Police should be equipped with cameras, riot control gear, and proper training to handle such situations. Technology must be utilized to identify rioters, and public prosecutors should streamline cases to assist courts. Excessive force in unnecessary situations only alienates citizens and makes the government less approachable.

Lawyers vs Police

Every year, there are certain issues that repeatedly capture headlines in India with almost predictable certainty—pollution in Delhi, high-profile criminal cases, and, inevitably, clashes between lawyers and police. While efforts to address pollution and crime is an issue in itself, this blog will focus on the feud between lawyers and the police.

The unfortunate pattern of conflict between the two groups follows a familiar cycle. A confrontation starts with an altercation between an individual policeman and a lawyer, then escalating as videos surface with claims of oppression from both sides. Soon, unions and associations get involved in strikes and demonstrations. Despite being a recurring issue for years, little seems to have been done to resolve or prevent these confrontations. Why does this pattern persist?

Understanding the Root Cause: Feudalism in Indian Society

Both police and lawyers accuse each other of behaving dictatorially. However, the root of these conflicts lies deeper—in the feudalistic nature of Indian society. Indian society is deeply influenced by a hierarchical mindset that is ingrained so thoroughly that it often goes unnoticed.

In India, respect and authority are hierarchically assigned not just within organizations but among professions as well. For instance, engineers—despite having specialized qualifications and decent pay—often do not enjoy the same societal respect as a police constable, who is seen as holding a “higher” position within society's invisible hierarchy. This mentality is evident in how people perceive blue-collar workers, often regarding them as lower in the social order, irrespective of their contributions.

However, in this rigid hierarchy, the position of lawyers is somewhat ambiguous. Lawyers are well-versed in the law and have privileged access to the courts, yet the general public seems to fear the police more than they respect the law profession. This fosters a sense of insecurity among lawyers subconsciously, who may feel that their authority should exceed that of the police. Conversely, the police, who often treat civilians with disdain, extend this dismissive attitude toward lawyers as well. Together, these attitudes create a recipe for conflicts. When political interests get involved, the situation becomes even more explosive.

Analyzing the Cyclic Conflict

With each lawyer-police confrontation, the pattern is predictable, but the outcome rarely brings any meaningful change. Lawyers, if genuinely concerned with the police’s mistreatment of civilians, have the option of seeking judicial remedies. Indeed, some individual lawyers actively challenge police actions in court and seek justice for the people. However, the general response from the legal community often takes the form of violent protests and strikes when one of their own is involved in a conflict with the police.

Such reactions not only disrupt the judicial system but also detract from efforts to achieve meaningful reform. This repetitive cycle of confrontations, strikes, and temporary escalations ultimately yields no lasting resolutions.

Personal Opinion

As a citizen and a professional, I find it difficult to support this recurring dispute between lawyers and police. While each profession plays a vital role in society, their clashes are unproductive and ultimately harmful. Unnecessary strikes delay court proceedings and exacerbate an already overburdened judicial backlog. These battles mirror childish “us vs. them” arguments that one might expect in a schoolyard, rather than in institutions responsible for upholding law and order.

Seventy-seven years into India’s existence as a republic, it is perhaps time to outgrow such divisive conflicts. Both lawyers and police need to recognize the futility of these confrontations and acknowledge their shared role in serving society. Hopefully, with time and maturity, India will rise above these petty feuds to focus on more constructive paths forward. 

Analysing the Supreme Court’s Verdict on Child Marriage: New Guidelines on Implementation of PCMA

 The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors provides new guidelines to prevent Child Marriages in India. Under Article 32 of the Constitution, this petition highlighted the persistent difficulties in eliminating child marriage, despite various legal frameworks such as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA) of 2006. The NGO, which is actively involved in battling child marriage, submitted a petition highlighting systemic failures, especially in terms of enforcement and awareness efforts.

The decision from the Hon’ble Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud examines both the socio-legal consequences of child marriage and the socio-economic factors like poverty, gender inequality, and lack of education that sustain this tradition. In addition to the previous mechanisms to solve the problem, Supreme Court this time emphasizes the role of technology to erase the problem of child marriages.  The verdict also criticizes the inefficient enforcement of legal structures designed to prevent child marriage, highlighting the shortcomings of government agencies and the restrictions of existing legislation.

Laws and Child Marriage in India

The main purpose of the PCMA is to outlaw child marriages and impose penalties on those who participate in conducting these marriages. Child marriage is described as a marriage in which one of the parties involved is under the age of 18 for girls and 21 for boys. Even with these laws in place, the prevalence of child marriage has revealed deficiencies in their implementation.

The judgement explains how child marriage continues to exist despite these structures. For example, the court examines the significance of Child Marriage Prohibition Officers (CMPOs) and how their duties as outlined in Section 16 of the PCMA are diminished by being assigned various other tasks, hindering their ability to effectively prevent child marriages. The court notes that in numerous states, CMPOs have been appointed, but their effectiveness in preventing child marriages is reduced due to additional responsibilities.

The court examines information from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) that demonstrates a gradual decrease in child marriage rates, but stresses that advancements are still not satisfactory. In NFHS-5 (2019-2021), it was reported that approximately 23.3% of females below 18 years were wed, slightly lower than the 26.8% documented in NFHS-4 (2015-2016). Although child marriage has decreased, it is still a major concern, especially in rural regions.

Factors related to Society, Economy, and Culture

This judgement acknowledges the social and economic circumstances that contribute to child marriage, such as poverty, cultural traditions, and limited educational opportunities. In many rural and impoverished communities, it is commonly believed that marrying off a young girl is necessary for financial reasons, as recognized by the court. Getting married at a young age is seen to lessen the financial strain on families, especially when considering dowries and the expenses of bringing up children. Moreover, traditional beliefs that prioritize a girl's purity and reputation still compel families to arrange marriages for their daughters early on, out of fear of societal judgment if the girl remains single for too long.

The judgment highlights that child marriages disproportionately impact girls, restricting their access to education and employment, leading to ongoing cycles of poverty and reliance. The court's examination underscores that child marriages also heighten the chances of maternal and infant deaths, as young brides are not physically ready for pregnancy and giving birth.

 

Global Responsibilities Regarding Human Rights

The court places India's efforts to combat child marriage within the broader context of global human rights. It refers to global responsibilities, such as CEDAW and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which acknowledge child marriage as a breach of human rights. The ruling highlights that child marriage is not just a breach of personal rights but also a wider societal problem that restricts social and economic progress. The discussion is guided by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, specifically Goal 5.3, which targets the eradication of child, early, and forced marriages, underscoring the urgency for quicker advancements in meeting these worldwide pledges.

 

Judicial Recommendations and Way Forward

Supreme Court provides the guidelines for improving the enforcement of anti-child marriage laws. The court recommends:

1. Strengthening the role of CMPOs: The judgment calls for CMPOs to be relieved of their additional duties, allowing them to focus exclusively on preventing child marriages and acting against offenders.
2. Increased Awareness Campaigns: The court stresses the importance of public awareness campaigns, particularly in rural and marginalized communities, to educate families on the harms of child marriage and the legal consequences.
3. Community Involvement: The judgment suggests involving local community leaders and NGOs in the fight against child marriage. Community-based initiatives, including financial incentives and educational programs for girls, should be expanded.
4. Use of Technology: The court also recognizes the potential of technology-driven initiatives for reporting child marriages, suggesting that government bodies use digital platforms to enable easier reporting and monitoring of such incidents.

Legal consequences

Although the judgement represents progress, it highlights the constraints of the legal system and the sluggishness of the reform process. The court recognizes the strong cultural and social elements that hinder efforts to end child marriage, but emphasizes that this should not be a reason for lenient enforcement. The court's recognition of the complexities involved is shown in its focus on various solutions such as legal, social, and economic measures.

One criticism is that the judgment outlines a plan to tackle child marriage but puts most of the responsibility on government authorities, who have a track record of being slow to act, to solve this problem we must have to get help from civil societies otherwise instead of solving the problem, we will have more writs in the Supreme Court. A major worry is the absence of accountability measures for officials who do not uphold the law. Additionally, the consequences for individuals participating in child marriages, as specified in the PCMA, are not adequately upheld, resulting in decreased rates of conviction.

Summary

The above article analyses the new guidelines given by the Supreme Court of India regarding the proper implementation of PCMA.