rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Rothbard’s description of the “judiciary-state nexus” also helps explain the futility of the Court’s reasoning behind the “Pan-India Guidelines”. As I have argued, this futility has already become apparent in such cases and despite the Court’s pan-India guidelines, lynching and hate speech continue unabated.
By merely establishing a procedure, the Guidelines risk becoming a mechanism to legitimize state power even in the case of demolitions. In the same book, Rothbard argues that the concept of checks and balances does not actually control power, but rather serves as a “rubber stamp” for it. As he writes eloquently: “If a judicial decision of ‘unconstitutional’ serves as a powerful check on government power, an implicit or explicit decision of ‘constitutional’ would more than ever ensure public acceptance of government power.” Becomes a powerful tool for promotion.”
Silent on the past brutality of arbitrary demolitions, the judgment also fails to recognize their communal nature and how they have been weaponized against the Muslim community by both the political class and the state machinery. This apparent failure to face the reality of “bulldozer justice” is, in itself, a form of erasure rooted in the communal dog whistle that is “bulldozer justice.”
Notably, soon after the demolition in Nuh, Haryana last year, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court had the courage to ask whether demolitions targeting buildings owned mostly by Muslims amounted to “”
The bottom line is that even in cases where the Court ultimately upholds the rights of individuals and the rule of law, this comes only after a long period of silence, during which the arbitrary actions of the state have already been legitimized. The Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year, invalidating electoral bondsThere is a case.
These examples and many other recent examples demonstrate a disturbing pattern in which the Court unabashedly deploys itself in the service of validating the actions of the state. The questions raised in this judgment are not just of legal importance; They attack how state power is exercised and highlight why courts should limit rather than facilitate its reach in the first place.
(Burhan Majid teaches legal and constitutional principles at the School of Law, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi. He tweets at @burhanmajid. Views are personal.)
