Bulldozer Raj Justice and its’ Disparities

INTRODUCTION

In the contemporary India, the study of policy decisions made by the Governmental authorities indicates towards the class disparities in the society. In this article, we will dwell in to two of such policy decisions, one is the infamous ‘Bulldozer Raj’ as seen prevalently in the current Uttar Pradesh Regime, second is of ‘housing regularization schemes’ as being facilitated by multiple state Governments. When we read these two policies together, we see a socio-economic disparity, where belonging to a weaker group is punished and belonging to a stronger section of society, rewarded. Through this, I intend to analyze the effect of the above-mentioned policy measures and how it effects different socio-economic groups in disproportionate manner.

BULLDOZER RAJ

A Recent report by the House and Land Rights Network suggests that in the year of over 5 lakh individuals were evicted by the phenomena titled ‘Bulldozer Raj’, which demolished around 1 lakh houses.[1] The legality of this is questionable at best as the Supreme Court recently spoke out against the same, inviting suggestions regarding pan-India guidelines as an alternative to the same.[2] Essentially, if a person is accused of a crime, the state finds a reason to evict such a person and demolish their homes. The Justification being that it is necessary to prevent encroachment of land. But it inherently effects the people belonging to lower socio-economic groups. This method is prevalent in the state of Uttar Pradesh, but other states seem to be resorting to same methods.[3] Constitutionality of such actions taken by the Government has come under scrutiny over the last few years. Many of these properties which are termed as illegal were still subject to civil litigation in which their legality was to be determined. Even if an establishment is indeed illegal in nature, it is required that individuals living in such places be given reasonable notice to make alternative arrangements. As many of them belong to the weaker sections of the society, minority groups, it is difficult for such an individuals to find alternative arrangements without such notice. Further, there is no rational nexus between demolishing the house of an individual who has been accused of a crime completely unrelated to the property.[4] In the landmark Judgment of Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India[5], The Indian Supreme Court has held that the aspect of due process, even though not explicitly mentioned is still a part of the fundamental rights and that when someone is being deprived of their fundamental right to life and liberty, it has to be done through a procedure which is fair, just and unarbitrary. By not providing a reasonable notice of eviction or the right to fair trail where victims of such an action could represent their case, the state is indeed violating their constitutionally given fundamental rights and defeated the principles of natural justice. Moreover, these laws are enforced against certain communities by cherry-picking instances where such an extra-judicial act is to be done. Selective enforcement of laws in itself violates Article 14[6] of the Constitution, which ensures equality to everyone. It is also to be understood that bulldozer Raj effects the marginalised sections of the society more[7], and if the opposition parties are to be believed, it targets minority religions[8]. The Indian Constitution does not force the state to provide housing for all, but the Indian Courts have on numerous occasions when dealing with evictions have held that the Government is to make alternative arrangements for such individuals[9].

Despite all the legal restrictions and procedural safeguards, the state governments across India continue to take such actions, despite the apex court having objections to the same[10]. As discussed above, such an action effects individuals of weaker socio-economic background as they do not have the means to fight legal battles and because of their financial or social conditions are forced to live in establishments which might not have proper documentations such as slums. Apart from this, there is one more aspect which favours the socio-economically affluent sections of the society who might be living in illegally built establishments over others.

REGULARISATION SCHEMES

When the issue of Bulldozer Raj was being discussed nationally, the President of BRS Party of Telangana, K T Rama Rao had requested Mallikarjun Kharge, the president of the Congress Party (which is the ruling party of Telangana) to not take such actions in Telangana[11]. This is appreciated. But the fact is, Telangana and many other states have policies that are in my opinion equally sinister. These are Land Regularisation Schemes (LRS)[12]. When an establishment is to be built, there are multiple approvals and permissions the builders are to take from the Government. In case such approval is not taken, such an establishment will be illegal in the eyes of law. But through LRS, one could pay hefty fees and regularise (essentially legalise) such establishments. The neoliberal justification for this is that such an action would help in promotion of planned development projects, helping the state economy to grow. The problem however is the fees itself. It essentially lets a few individuals who have access to required means and resources to regularise their property. However, the houses of those who have no access to such means or resources will be left in the dark. When we read this in the context of phenomenon such as Bulldozer Raj, we can clearly see the problem. The state with its all its might is to set rules and for the purpose of its subjects safety. But by having schemes such as LRS, the state is not only encouraging individuals to not follow regulations but also discriminating against weaker section of the society, who actually need the help of the state. Instead of help, they are forced to leave their homes by extra-legal means.

CONCLUSION

The stark contrast between Bulldozer Raj and LRS schemes represent the duality in state’s approach towards housing policy. Demolishing of house belonging to weaker and marginalised minorities while regularising the same for affluent wealthy individuals indicates an imbalance. Through this, the state is not only facilitating but actively participating in perpetuating systematic inequality. The ignorance of procedural safeguards established under the Constitution and the principles of natural justice indicate to the lack of commitment from the states end to establishing a rule of law society in which each of its subjects, irrespective of their class is equal. These policies not only side-line the poor but also contribute to the larger narrative of class-based discrimination. Such a situation must be unacceptable in a democratic polity, where everyone has a right to be treated equally.

[1] Whose homes are destroyed? How “bulldozer raj” affects marginalised people, India Today (2024), https://www.indiatoday.in/diu/story/whose-homes-are-destroyed-how-bulldozer-raj-affects-marginalised-people-2511511-2024-03-06 (last visited Sep 5, 2024).

[2] SC’s stand against ‘bulldozer justice’ is welcome — but it may be too little too late, The Indian Express (Sep. 4, 2024), https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/editorials/scs-stand-against-bulldozer-justice-is-welcome-but-it-may-be-too-little-too-late-9548767/ (last visited Sep 5, 2024).

[3] Sanjay Pandey Joy,DHNS Satish Jha,Shemin, From Yogi to Jahangirpuri: The Rise of the Bulldozer Raj, Deccan Herald, https://www.deccanherald.com/india/from-yogi-to-jahangirpuri-the-rise-of-the-bulldozer-raj-1103381.html (last visited Sep 5, 2024).

[4] Joy Makhal, “Bulldozer Justice”: An Analysis into the Rule of Law in India, 5 Issue 1 Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. 1 (2023).

[5] Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India, (1978) 1 AIR 248 (India).

[6] INDIA CONST. art. 14.

[7] Whose homes are destroyed?, supra note 1.

[8] Why bulldozer is instant, but not justice – India Today, https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bulldozer-justice-action-supreme-court-validity-uttar-pradesh-yogi-adityanath-madhya-pradesh-2592179-2024-09-02 (last visited Sep 5, 2024).

[9] Sudama Singh & Others v. Government of Delhi, 168 (2010) DLT 218, Abdul Mateen Siddiqui v. Union of India

[10] SC questions ‘bulldozer action’: “How can house of accused be demolished,” https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/sc-questions-bulldozer-action-how-can-an-accuseds-house-be-demolished-12812159.html (last visited Sep 5, 2024).

[11] Telangana not to become another bulldozer raj: KTR, The Times of India, Aug. 30, 2024, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/telangana-not-to-become-another-bulldozer-raj-ktr/articleshow/112933214.cms (last visited Sep 5, 2024).

[12] Telangana Greenlights Regularization of Unauthorised Plots Through LRS, https://www.constructionworld.in/policy-updates-and-economic-news/telangana-greenlights-regularization-of-unauthorised-plots-through-lrs/51541 (last visited Sep 5, 2024).