by Sanjay Saxena On September 17, the Supreme Court expressed concern about the illegal use of bulldozers for demolitions, calling it against constitutional values, and imposed a stay until October 1 (the next hearing). The Supreme Court stated that even a single case of illegal demolition goes against constitutional principles. No property, including that of an accused criminal, should be demolished without the court’s permission. This order was issued by a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan while hearing petitions accusing the state of using bulldozers to target the properties of accused criminals. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the governments of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, strongly opposed the interim order. He argued that the perception being presented to the court is that only properties belonging to a particular community accused of crimes are being demolished, whereas examples from Madhya Pradesh could prove that Hindu homes have also been demolished. He asked the petitioners to present a single case where the law was not followed, but the court dismissed the government’s objections, remarking, “What will happen if demolitions are stopped for one week?” The court clarified that this stay does not apply to public property like roads, sidewalks, railway tracks, or water bodies. The implication is clear: the judiciary is protecting illegal constructions by powerful individuals who can afford high-level representation even after committing serious crimes and have built empires on government land. Crime has become a habit for them. It would have been better if, along with halting the bulldozer actions, the Supreme Court had also focused on ensuring criminals receive swift punishment. Yet, aside from a few exceptions, courts have rarely paid attention to this issue, resulting in the continuous rise in crime, for which the blame is often laid at the feet of the government. The bench stated that the immediate priority is to streamline the process so that neither officials nor individuals can exploit any loophole. The executive cannot act as judges, and the court’s orders will apply across India. The bench emphasized that it had already clarified on September 2 that the court would not protect unauthorized constructions on public roads or places. For footpaths, they even stated that no notice is necessary; any religious structure can be demolished. So, why does the judiciary issue orders against actions taken against illegal constructions? In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, the Uttar Pradesh government filed an affidavit stating that merely being an accused criminal is not a basis for demolishing property. Demolitions are carried out according to the legal process when there is a violation of municipal law. The court appreciated the state’s stand, yet still ruled against it—another coincidence.
However, this is not the first time bulldozer actions have sparked discussion in the country. During the Emergency, 4,039 buildings were demolished across the country. In 1978, the Shah Commission, in its third and final report, stated that most of the demolitions in Delhi were ordered by Sanjay Gandhi, and in other states, they were done to please him. The Shah Commission’s report noted that Delhi topped the list of cities with bulldozer actions, with 1,248 buildings demolished in the capital alone. In Madhya Pradesh, 628 buildings were brought down; Uttar Pradesh saw 425; Haryana, 300; Odisha, 251; Bihar, 226; West Bengal, 204; and Rajasthan, 163. The Shah Commission’s report provided details of other states as well, stating that the demolitions were carried out to clear slums and beautify cities. According to the report, arbitrary actions occurred in many places, and several incidents were inhumane. Across the country, thousands of families were uprooted with only a few hours’ notice.
Meanwhile, as the Supreme Court was showing sensitivity toward illegal occupiers by halting bulldozer actions, the Bombay High Court expressed concern over the police’s apathetic attitude toward crimes against women and children. The Bombay High Court, in its comments, drew attention to a sensitive issue that is a matter of serious concern. Notably, the rise in crimes against women and children has become a pressing issue in the country, as confirmed by data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). According to NCRB data, crimes against women have increased by 75% over the past decade. Just a few weeks ago, during a district courts conference, Prime Minister Modi also highlighted the pressing issue of women and children’s safety, advocating for swift justice in such cases. When it comes to children, the statistics are even more alarming. According to the NCRB, in 2022, an average of 18 crimes were committed against children every hour, a truly terrifying situation. This is particularly dangerous because, while the overall number of crimes has decreased in 2023 compared to 2022, crimes against children have increased by 9%. Cybercrimes have exacerbated this situation. The NCRB’s report found that cybercrimes against children in 2022 were 32% higher than in 2021. Indeed, children’s growing online presence, especially on social media and gaming platforms, has made them easy targets for cybercriminals. Crimes like phishing, hacking, cyberbullying, and online fraud are not only impacting children’s mental health but also drawing them into the web of cybercrimes. One major reason for children’s vulnerability to cybercrimes is their easy access to the internet and their lack of digital literacy. The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to the rise of negative trends, as millions of children came into contact with mobile phones for online education. Despite the presence of relevant laws, the increasing complexity of cybercrimes due to technological advancements remains a challenge. In such a scenario, law enforcement agencies must work vigilantly, and the public must also become more aware of their digital behavior. Overall, ensuring the safety of women and children requires more effective implementation of laws. However, efforts to curb rising crimes against women and children should not be limited to the government alone; they also demand social change. The judiciary should focus more on ensuring that criminals receive swift punishment, rather than merely commenting on the government’s efforts to control crime.
