Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath immediately caught flak from his political adversaries, but the Supreme Court ruling didn't single him out. People accused of crimes will henceforth face bulldozer action in a legally laid down modus operandi. So, criminals gloating at the "defeat" of Yogi Adityanath should not declare victory. Bulldozer justice will still be delivered but in an even more definitive manner. The top court's guidelines have made bulldozer action watertight. With the guidelines in place, there would be no escaping bulldozer punishment. There will be no room for the midnight knock-knock on the apex court’s door.

People accused of crimes will meet their bete noire come hell or high-water; if not instantaneously, then the day after tomorrow or the day after that. The Supreme Court took the illegality, the "extrajudicial", out of bulldozer action and gave bulldozer justice a choga of unimpeachable legality. Besides, apart from one single instance, none of the petitioners could pinpoint an instance of bulldozer justice gone wrong. Criminals and their families actually encroached on government land and were rightfully slapped with notices of demolition on their doors.

The Supreme Court said even the families of rapists, murderers and rioters have fundamental rights, which is not wrong. But are the "families" of most criminals lilywhite innocents? More often than not, they're "crime families" and a "criminal enterprise." The Atiq Ahmed Crime Family. The crime families of the New York Mafia!

The problem is 'justice delayed is justice denied' and common people look at delays plaguing delivery of justice and when they see bulldozer justice in action, no judiciary can match it. Bulldozer justice caught on after 2017, when newly-installed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath used bulldozer action to tame criminal elements in his state.

UP's denizens loved it and they voted the Yogi to power in 2022, too. The Samajwadi Party government has always been crime-deaf! Now, the Supreme Court has stepped in and more people are against the top court's ruling than there are people who are against bulldozer action. The apex court is batting for rule of law and justice for all, but how much has the top court done for rule of law, if ever?

At least the Yogi Adityanath government cannot be hauled up for illegal demolition of legal structures. There is not a single mention of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in the 95-page judgement. The Rs 25 lakh given to a journalist's family is compensation for the bulldozer action on his house, it is not "fine" or "penalty".

The judgement reads fair and square. But we are dealing with hardened criminals, murderers and rapists; people for whom "rioting in the streets" is god-ordained. Threats came easy to this tribe of lawbreakers. For them, the "the principle of the rule of law" doesn’t carry water. Democracy or rights guaranteed under the Constitution do not stop them from violating every law of the land.

The Supreme Court judgement says the usual suspects should be given the chance to say their side of the story and protection should be provided to individuals from arbitrary state action. That there should be "fairness in the criminal justice system", which translates to "nobody can prejudge the guilt of the accused." There is also separation of powers that the "Executive" shouldn't take lightly.

All of these are fine, but the criminals who are celebrating the Supreme Court ruling will be back to their criminal enterprises sooner rather than later. That is how the system works and the Supreme Court justices know this, too. What about the "safety" of citizens who take rule of law seriously; who expect rule of law to be honoured by everybody in the system, not just by the law-abiding?

Was there "fairness in the criminal justice system" in which Atiq Ahmed and Mukhtar Ansari flourished? What about the safety of the "desh"? What about destruction of public/government property? What about the fellow who was pictured kicking the "Amar Jawan Jyoti" in Bombay's 'Azad Maidan'? Why is 90% of the "bulldozer action" against people of one community?

Having a contrarian view is freedom of expression. A couplet from a Hindi poem can explain the fundamental right to shelter given under Article 21 of the Constitution, but the court let off the rapist-killer of a 4-year-old with a rap on the wrist and the alleviating words, “Even a sinner has a future”. It actually happened, the rapist went home, protected by Article 21, to live happily ever after!

Justice B R Gavai, chose a couplet from a Hindi poem to emphasize everybody's right to shelter. Roughly translated, the couplet reads “to have one's own home, one's own courtyard – this dream lives in every heart. It's a longing that never fades, to never lose the dream of a home." He asked whether the "Executive" should be permitted to take away the shelter of a family or families as punishment for one family member's crime?

The top court ruled that the "Executive cannot replace the Judiciary" and that rule of law should prevail; if the "Executive" acts as a judge and orders bulldozer action, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers." The court said if public officials demolish homes of criminals, he/she will be punished. Public officials will henceforth stop taking action against criminals. And if one structure is chosen for demolition, others that are in the vicinity will not be spared or else it would tantamount to "penalising without trial!"

The court labelled bulldozer action and bulldozer justice as inhuman and cruel. Let the accused even if he is caught red-handed, let him get a fair trial, like Ajmal Kasab got. "The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where 'might was right'," the court said, adding that "high-handed and arbitrary actions" violate the Constitution. No wonder there is problem with the rule of law in democratic India. (IPA Service)