On September 2, the Supreme Court frowned on the Yogi Adityanath-led Uttar Pradesh government’s “bulldozer justice”. To be sure, while it is now only at the notice stage with the UP government getting an opportunity to defend arguably its most controversial rough-hewn measure, the court’s observations — it would lay down “pan-India” guidelines on demolition of houses linked to people accused of crimes — are ominous for the government as the rampaging governments would have to at least pause and think. To be sure again, it is not the UP government alone that has been using the bulldozer to mete out summary, peremptory, inhuman and indiscriminate justice. Its initiative or model has other adherents too. Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh governments too have resorted to it with alacrity.
The harshness of “bulldozer justice” must be apparent. First, it affects the lives of the innocent family members of the alleged criminal. They are caught in the crossfire. A home gives shelter to not only the alleged criminal but also to his old parents and infant children among others. Why should all of them be rendered homeless for the alleged crime of the property owner? Second, it has no place in our Constitutional scheme of things and in our criminal justice system. Third, as the Supreme Court has hinted, it is at best a matter for the municipal authorities to take action if at all the owner has fallen foul of the municipal law, after giving notice to the owner who might alter the construction to stay within the permissible limits. A bulldozer on the other hand razes the entire property to the ground. Fourth, it also inflicts collateral damage on non-family members too like the mortgage company that might have advanced home loan on the security of the property. Even the owner and his family suffer financially as rebuilding another house from scratch has humongous financial implications including payment of unaffordable rent till a replacement house is acquired. Obviously, the apex court shares the popular apprehension that municipal violation is just the thin edge of the wedge and hides deeper and more dangerous, malicious and vindictive motives.
Encounter killing belongs to the same genre though it has a large number of sympathisers who exult in alleged criminals being killed by the police instantly when the court process is not only long-drawn and protracted but also often results in the criminal getting acquitted for lack of watertight evidence against him. Furthermore, the police often blithely cite self-defence as the extenuating circumstance. To be sure, the human rights commission of the state conducts a post facto examination of the circumstances but that has not deterred the state governments from pursuing this rough-hewn measure which of course stands a greater chance of passing legal scrutiny vis-à-vis the bulldozer justice as it is very difficult to sit in judgment on the appropriateness of police action. It could be highhanded or provoked. Witnesses are often none except the other members of the police team, be it custodial deaths or when the criminal is being transported from the prison to the court for trial. The Yogi government admittedly has the distinction of using encounter justice to the hilt to get rid of anti-social elements. While it has won plaudits from the middle class, those affected by such highhandedness seethe with justified rage.
Yogi recently proposed yet another rough-hewn measure, this one being to tame social media users. The Uttar Pradesh government has introduced a new digital media policy that includes provisions to pay influencers up to Rs 8 lakh per month to promote state schemes on various social media platforms. However, the policy also, in a manner of carrot and stick, introduces strict penal action against social media users who share objectionable content, including anti-national posts that could beget the alleged abuser or panderer or rumour-monger a life term. The Opposition predictably has condemned and pooh-poohed this latest Yogi exuberance.
Even otherwise, the plan is questionable. Can the UP government nab YouTubers ensconced in distant Germany, for example? The virtual world confers anonymity like nothing else. Even with extradition treaty in place, the fugitives like Vijay Mallya are thumbing their noses from the salubrious London homes. Second, who will judge if a post is national or anti-national? A controversy is already raging on Netflix about the series IC 814. The argument is while Kangana Ranaut has to grin and bear the censors, Netflix runs untrammelled. The point is, censorship always polarises. Yogi may get away with financial rewards to the members of his echo chamber but will have a lot of answering to do if he tries severe punishment on violators of his fanciful code. YouTubers and tweeters and WhatsApp forwarders are in any case facing the heat of the courts. It therefore looks like Yogi’s carrot-and-stick social media policy is jumping the gun. It has the impress of an upstart who is high on enthusiasm and low on carefully thinking through his scheme.
Yogi Adityanath’s heart may be in the right place but his methods and measures could be questionable or in any case have to stand and survive probing legal scrutiny. Bulldozer justice being the most sweeping and summary of all has begotten the apex court’s attention. It is just as well.
S Murlidharan is a freelance columnist and writes on economics, business, legal and taxation issues
