Bulldozer injustice to ‘teach a lesson’

Shakespeare speaking through Angelo measure for Measure, asks a pertinent question that still resonates today: “Who commits the most sins, tempted or tempted?” In the Law on Sedition, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the person guilty of inciting violence is. Ego, temptation commits the most sins. In today’s interpretation of the law, it does not matter whether abetted or not; Powers that don’t ‘like’ what someone said or tweeted will be charged with treason anyway.

bulldozer justice

But the law becomes more complicated when a fringe but influential national spokesperson incites violence by saying something offensive about the Prophet. The new law seems to ignore the provocation of the tempter, but finds the tempted guilty. The convicts are then punished by a common judge, jury and executioner and given a double-engined sentence: arrest, followed by arbitrary and retaliatory demolition of their residential accommodation, now commonly known as bulldozer justice. . I like to call it bulldozer injustice.

editorial | Bulldozer in the open: On breaking the property of Muslim activists

There are sufficient provisions in the Indian Penal Code for the police to take action against any violator, but the law does not apply if the inducement has an impressive fringe or well-connectedness. so, a call shoot is ignored; Innocent lynching garlanded an invitation for the accused; The call for genocide is a bit of a nuisance. Is it any wonder that anything offensive said about the Prophet invites only a mild rap on the knuckles? If this is considered a sufficient punishment, then thousands of people across the country can understand the exercise of the fundamental right to protest. Individuals accused of very few crimes have been charged with treason. The less fortunate have been subject to anti-terrorism laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, while the unfortunate have been imprisoned under the National Security Act (NSA) or the Public Safety Act.

when the state acts

Is there a constitutional right to resort to violence during a protest? No way. The Constitution of India allows only peaceful assembly without arms. Stones or brickwork can be made weapons and they are a no-no. Violence in protests cannot be justified under any circumstances, whatever the reason. A light wrap on the knuckles of the lure does not guarantee the use of a knuckle duster by the lure.

But, as they say, violence breeds violence. And so, the state goes down heavily on the violent protesters and the apocryphal iron fist popularized a few years ago by a learned Supreme Court judge. The state then uses its machinery in the form of bulldozers to demolish the residential premises of those involved in the violent protests. The long arm of the law is used to identify protesters and a list of those who need to be ‘taught a lesson’ is drawn up. Remember, a similar strategy was used after the assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1984. At that time, we used to call it genocide, whereas today we call it ‘teaching a lesson’.

Fundamental Rights

Some violent protesters have a house or a shop or a stall, but many do not. Javed Mohammad, an activist from Prayagraj in Uttar Pradesh, was unlucky that his wife had a house. So, as a part of the lesson to be taught, he was first imprisoned and then his house was demolished through constitutional violations. Ironically, two judgments of the Supreme Court of Uttar Pradesh recognize asylum as a fundamental right. In UP Awas and Vikas Parishad Vs Friends Cop. Housing Society Limited (1996) held that “the right to shelter is a fundamental right, arising out of the right to abode as assured in Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life under Article 21 (of the Constitution).” In Chameli Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1996) held that “the right to shelter when used as an essential requirement for the right to life should be treated as guaranteed as a fundamental right”. People who do not have a home will probably be thrashed mercilessly like the helpless victims of a lathi charge at a police station in Uttar Pradesh’s Saharanpur, the video of which has gone viral.

How does the state justify constitutional violations? As reported, it says Mr. Javed’s house was illegal and there was a demolition notice (or was pasted on the wall) and he did not take advantage of the opportunity of being heard in accordance with law. It is difficult to trust the state for many reasons.

an illegality

First, the state collected tax from Mr. Javed for the so-called illegal construction. Was the illegality of construction waived? If not, was the state not involved in perpetuating the illegality and earning from it? Has any action been taken by the state against its officials involved?

Second, the well-established principle that the State’s action needs to be a just, fair and just mandate, in the absence of any formidable urgency, another opportunity for Mr. Javed to appear for the hearing. Maybe he was sick or out of town. Why was this routine denied ‘one more chance’?

Third, Mr. Javed’s house was ransacked on a Sunday, which is a government holiday. Even in NSA cases, the Supreme Court has put out Sunday to deal with a representation against preventive detention. It is good if the government works even on holidays, but can’t an “efficient” government give Mr. Javed the benefit of government leave? Let’s be realistic.

Fourth, the demolition order was pasted on the wall of Mr. Javed’s house on Saturday night and the demolition took place on Sunday morning, leaving him or his wife no time to challenge the correctness of the demolition order in a court of law or file. an appeal. Is it just, fair and just?

Fifth, the Delhi High Court decided a case in which the Uttar Pradesh Police illegally eloped two residents of Delhi and sent them to judicial custody for nearly two months without charge. The Additional Advocate General of UP admitted that the concerned police officers made false statements before the court, produced false documents in the investigation and even before the Special Investigation Team constituted to probe the issues identified by the High Court ( Tinu Vs Sarkar. of NCT of Delhi) (2022). Obviously, the track record of the UP Police has been quite unbelievable. In the case of Mr. Javed, facts and documents can be made out alike. Sorry, but the demolition saga smacks of vengeance, legal and factual malice.

need for accountability

What is the solution? First of all, the state should give adequate compensation to Mr. Javed so that he can rebuild his house. Second, he should be given equal compensation for the mental suffering caused to him and his family. Third, the officials concerned at all levels should be held accountable and punished adequately to ‘teach them a lesson’. Accountability jurisprudence will have to take root in India and the culture of impunity will end. Fourth, the dissolution of the Uttar Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, a body that clearly sees neither evil, hears neither evil nor does good.

Conclusion: The temptation has achieved its purpose and the tempted can only feel sorry for oneself and say goodbye to the rule of law.

Justice Madan B. Lokur, a former Supreme Court judge of India, is currently a judge of the Supreme Court of Fiji.