rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
The Supreme Court said, “Bulldozer justice is absolutely unacceptable under the rule of law…Justice through bulldozers is unknown to any civilized system of jurisprudence.”On the same day, at a by-election campaign rally addressed by UP CM Yogi Adityanath, his supporters staged his arrival.
But the Supreme Court reiterated that bulldozersA reminder of a chaotic situation where “might was right.” Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, as a “star campaigner” for the BJP in other states bound for assembly elections, has been asking voters to come to power.
“Bulldozer Justice” is not only the identity card of Yogi but also of Prime Minister Modi. While campaigning for his second term as prime minister this summer, Narendra Modi said that if the opposition won, he would bulldoze the Ram Temple. He took a dig at the Indian group and said that it should take tuition from Yogi on where to drive the bulldozer.
If the Supreme Court declares “Bulldozer Justice” as lawless and the Prime Minister of the country seeks votes on the basis of the promise of giving “Bulldozer Justice”, then definitely the Supreme Court can call him and the UP CM as the head of the executive. and ensure that they are held accountable in specific and clear ways?
At the very least, he could be asked to personally compensate the victims of such demolitions in the courtroom, and to personally make an official statement on television reading explicit parts of the judgment as chosen by the court. It can be said.
The court could, at the very least, have prevented the Prime Minister and the concerned Chief Minister from enjoying plausible deniability: it would have required them to go on live TV in person to order a halt to each impending punitive demolition, failing which the Supreme Court Had to do this. Put him in jail immediately on contempt charges.
When the country is ruled by leaders for whom it is not an embarrassment but an advertisement that is considered to be in violation of the rule of law and constitutional provisions, the judiciary cannot claim to have performed its duty. As the guardian of the Constitution, it cannot end with guidelines imposed only on the bureaucratic branch of the executive.
When political heads of the executive usurp the role of the judiciary, it is not judicial overreach, and is, in fact, a judicial duty to issue directions requiring compliance from specific political leaders.
One might ask, despite political rhetoric, surely the guidelines set by the Supreme Court’s November 13 judgment will make it difficult for BJP governments to actually carry out punitive bulldozer demolitions? I fear the opposite may be true.
That decision itself states that the UP government had said that “immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.” The UP government’s decision said this will “help curb organized crime and create fear of legal consequences among criminals.” In fact, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath himself had announced in 2022 that only illegal encroachments will be demolished in 2022, not the huts of the poor.
The Supreme Court had begun hearing petitions against “bulldozer justice” in September itself, and had already announced its intention to issue nationwide guidelines to ban arbitrary demolitions. But while Supreme Court judges were saying that “a house can be demolished merely because someone is accused of a crime,” Yogi Adityanath was claiming that secularists like him are incapable of administering justice with bulldozers. “Only someone with ‘heart and mind’ can drive a bulldozer,” he said. He said, “Those who bow before the rioters cannot lift the wheel of a bulldozer.”
PM Modi’s “bulldozer” speech quoted above refers to an example of the BJP’s decades-old expertise in fiddling with Supreme Court rules, using them as fig leaves for the very crimes they ban. Are. Modi said the Indian faction wants to bulldoze the Ram temple in Ayodhya, which was built by Modi and Yogi with the blessings of the Supreme Court on the ruins of a mosque that was razed to the ground. kar sevaks In 1992, a clear violation of the formal assurance given to the Supreme Court.
Despite RSS and BJP leaders declaring their intention to demolish the mosque, in November 1992 the Supreme Court, after securing a formal assurance by the BJP government of Uttar Pradesh, allowed a “symbolic kar seva” to be held on 6 December. That the “status quo” on the structure would be maintained, and that its own observer would be appointed to attend the event. who later became Prime Minister, made a wink “jokingly” about the Supreme Court order in a speech, to which everyone laughed and applauded. kar sevaks,
He said, “The Supreme Court has appointed its observer. it has allowed do your own thingAnd his orders will be followed. The Supreme Court has said that we should not build anything, but it has allowed us to pray. Prayer is not done alone but in a group. We cannot stand for hours while praying, we need to sit. Naturally, if there are sharp stones on the ground we cannot sit, the ground has to be levelled. we will also He went away (ritual), then there will be some construction, at least you see (The altar) will be constructed and I don’t think the Supreme Court has put a stop to any of these things. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow. everything will be decided kar sevaks,
Vajpayee’s speech explained precisely how the mosque would be demolished to build the temple, taking advantage of the conditions set by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s own order gave the BJP leadership grounds for plausible deniability. It could actually say, “The Supreme Court itself granted permission for the gathering by stipulating conditions which we followed. Neither the court nor we could have expected this kar sevaks He will get carried away and raze the mosque to the ground.”
Modi’s speech is saying, in fact, we were saved by demolishing the mosque and building a temple and Yogi’s bulldozers are still demolishing houses, shops and mosques of Muslims.
What has been the fate of other recent orders of the Supreme Court? In July this year, the Supreme Court issued directions to the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments that hotels located on the Kanwar Yatra route will have to display the names of owners and staff outside the shops. These directives will effectively characterize, isolate and humiliate Muslim businesses, owners and employees, and will also help violent mobs identify them. In September, the Yogi government ordered hotels to prominently display the names of owners, managers and staff, and also ordered the police to conduct verification drives.
Another example is the Pegasus affair – which concerned the presence of Israeli spyware, sold only to governments, on the phones of many journalists, politicians, activists and even their family members. The Supreme Court appointed one to investigate the allegations, who then told the court that the government did not cooperate with its investigation. While the Supreme Court did not seek cooperation from the government, it also failed to demand the question: Was it using Pegasus or any other software to conduct surveillance on Indian citizens without legal process?
In fact, illegal surveillance using Pegasus continues despite the matter coming to the attention of the apex court.
The bulldozer has for all purposes become the symbol of Yogi, Modi and the unofficial party of the BJP. This exposes the reality: anarchy in civil liberties, minority rights, corruption and many other matters is established as a stable feature of governance.
The bulldozers, even more than the Ram temple, are a declaration that the Hindu Rashtra is under communal and authoritarian rule, which is increasingly encroaching on the constitutional sphere. An honest judiciary should not entertain the notion that the government will follow judicial directions in good faith today. Instead, it must show the courage and will to end the BJP’s encroachment on constitutional democracy, before permanent structures are formed.
(Kavitha Krishnan is a women’s rights activist. This is an opinion and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)
