‘Bulldozer justice’ is a misnomer. The term, in fact, is synonymous with the travesty of justice. Little wonder then that in November last year, the Supreme Court had described the popular administrative practice of arbitrary demolition of the properties of the accused as emblematic of a lawless state of affairs and delineated a set of pan-India guidelines. These included such stipulations as the issuing of a specific notice period to the persons concerned before the demolition was to take place, an opportunity for the affected parties to contest the demolition orders and so on. The violation of these guidelines, the apex court had warned, would be tantamount to contempt of court and would lead to the prosecution of errant officials. Only unauthorised encroachments on public spaces were granted immunity from these regulations. Shockingly, the rash known as bulldozer justice continues to spread. The Supreme Court recently pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for razing houses in Prayagraj within 24 hours of serving notice; the Bombay High Court had to issue a stay on the order of the authorities to destroy two houses linked to those suspected of being linked to the recent riots in Nagpur; a man has also filed a contempt petition accusing authorities in Sindhudurg of destroying his house and shop without due process: the Supreme Court has sought a response from the Maharashtra government in this case. It is not a coincidence that most states that have reported such transgressions have the Bharatiya Janata Party in power. Yogi Adityanath’s symbo­lic template of injustice — the rampaging bulldozer — has been eagerly adopted by his peers. Data from Amnesty International revealed that between April and June 2022, authorities in four BJP-ruled states and one state ruled by the Aam Aadmi Party had dismantled 128 structures, mostly belonging to Muslims. That such predations undermine the principles of natural justice, torpedo citizens’ right to shelter and are indicative of overreach by the executive were ignored by the powers that be.

What is especially worrying is that this controversial mode of dispensing justice seems to have public endorsement. Mr Adityanath has been eulogised for his weaponisation of the bulldozer; even more worrying is the news from Gujarat where six villagers were arrested after they used a bulldozer to destroy the house of a man who stands accused of eloping with a married woman. That a rogue form of penalty, one that threatens the rule of law, has collective support can be construed as the antithesis of justice and order. The promoters of this disorder deserve punitive intervention.