Supreme Court's bulldozer ruling: Why criticism is meant to remind those in power of their responsibilities
The Supreme Court of India has once again stated that bulldozer actions against allegedly illegal constructions violate the natural principles of justice. This is not the first time such a remark has been made. Despite declaring such forced actions unconstitutional, injustice through bulldozers has been witnessed recently in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. The court noted that this injustice is not just about demolishing slums and houses, but a violation of due legal process and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the protection of every citizen's personal liberty and life.
The Supreme Court termed the demolition of houses in Prayagraj as inhumane and illegal and directed the Urban Development Authority to pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each affected homeowner. During an anti-encroachment drive in Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, a girl was seen running with her books as a bulldozer tore down her hut — a moment the court described as deeply disturbing to the nation's conscience. This also exposed the arbitrariness and insensitivity of the authorities. The demolition of homes without giving the occupants a fair opportunity to explain their position was clearly described as unjust.
This indicates that the administration’s intention is not to discourage illegal constructions, but to teach a lesson. Indeed, the government and administration of Uttar Pradesh have been at the forefront of implementing the bulldozer model of so-called "instant justice." Defending this controversial action, the state’s Chief Minister had said that sometimes things need to be explained to people in a "language they understand," implying that punishment would be administered without waiting for a court's verdict.
Notably, in November last year, the Supreme Court issued several guidelines to stop the continued use of bulldozers. These included giving residents a fifteen-day notice before demolition. The court also warned that officers violating these instructions would face contempt proceedings and criminal cases. Yet, the reality on the ground remains unchanged.
There is no doubt that a zero-tolerance approach to public land encroachment is necessary. Illegal constructions must be removed, but following all rules and laws is equally important. The hasty use of bulldozers is unconstitutional and violates civil rights, the court noted. Many in Prayagraj and other places in Maharashtra claimed their homes were demolished within 24 hours of receiving notices. After the Nagpur violence, similar action was taken against the accused by demolishing their houses. Reportedly, they were not even given a chance to appeal.
Punishing an entire family for the alleged actions of one member is a violation of natural justice. Other family members also live in the house. In the Nagpur case, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court had stayed the action on the accused's property, but by the time the order reached the authorities, the demolition had already occurred.
The truth is that no illegal construction appears overnight. Why doesn't the local administration notice it while it's being built? Why is there suddenly a need to demolish it urgently? Why does the bulldozer start immediately? Another question is — why doesn’t the bulldozer act against illegal constructions by the rich, powerful, and influential? Undoubtedly, the speed of the bulldozer only increases under royal protection.
Once again, the issue of freedom of expression is in discussion, and this time it concerns a stand-up comedian — Kunal Kamra. In one of his shows, without naming anyone, he allegedly called a politician from Maharashtra a 'traitor'. This wasn’t the first time someone linked that leader with such a label. Even his former allies, whom he left to form a government with the BJP, have repeatedly questioned his loyalty. But the response from the leader’s followers this time was unprecedented.
When it comes to comedians, there’s no objection to calling someone a traitor. Anyone can express such an opinion. But the objection lies in the vulgar language used in their shows, which does not align with the values of a cultured society. Satire becomes meaningful only when the person being satirized remains a mere reference and is incapable of action. Still, I support the comedian’s right to express himself.
Our Constitution gives us the right to freedom of expression, but this right is not unlimited. The Constitution itself grants the government the power to impose 'reasonable restrictions'. On one hand, those exercising this right are expected to act responsibly. On the other, the government must ensure restrictions are in the national interest. However, in practice, we often see governments misuse this power, attempting to weaken this essential element of democracy under the guise of regulating expression.
During the Emergency declared fifty years ago, the then-government tried the same. Indira Gandhi later admitted that censorship prevented crucial information from reaching her, which hindered appropriate action. This aspect of freedom of expression cannot be ignored. In a democracy, this right equips people with the power to critique authority and holds the government accountable. The absence or violation of this right weakens democracy.
Recently, in an interview with an American journalist, Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to criticism as "the soul of democracy." He also noted that meaningful criticism is rarely seen these days and mentioned India's proud tradition of critique. While the Prime Minister’s comments were reassuring, it contrasts with the fact that he has not held a single press conference in over a decade, which casts doubt on his openness to criticism.
In a democracy, respect for journalists, writers, and creators is essential. If they are criticizing, the system must respond positively and with understanding. In such instances, Pandit Nehru's attitude comes to mind. When he felt that not enough meaningful criticism was being made of him, he himself criticized his own actions under a pseudonym. Once, he publicly told cartoonist Shankar — “Don’t spare me either.”
Nehru’s outlook is a true model of democratic values. History bears witness to cartoonists like Shankar and R.K. Laxman who offered constructive criticism. Even 'Kak', a sharp cartoonist, expressed his opinions in powerful yet mature language. The writings of Sharad Joshi made people laugh and reflect at the same time. Responding to such criticism is not only the government’s responsibility but also society's.
Democracy is not just a political system but a way of life. Both the government and society must set examples of awareness and dedication. Respect for criticism is part of that process. The right to freedom of expression is a symbol of that respect.
Articles 19(a) and 19(b) of our Constitution are central to our democracy. Article 19(a) gives people the right to express their opinions, and 19(b) allows for 'reasonable restrictions', reminding citizens of their duties. This balance between rights and responsibilities is the essence of our democracy. Hence, both government and society must be aware of criticism and respect it.
In Kunal Kamra’s case, it should be remembered that this is not just one incident, but a symbol of growing intolerance. Recently, in another case, the Supreme Court clarified that a creator’s right to freedom of expression cannot be based on popularity. Ideas must be countered with ideas. Assuming a poem or joke spreads hatred in society distorts the original intent of freedom of expression. Criticism is meant to remind those in power of their responsibilities. Therefore, protecting the soul of democracy is our collective responsibility.
Comments