Editorial 1: Two cheers for the top court’s ‘bulldozer’ judgment

Context

A closer look at the judgment shows that securing a meaningful right to shelter and protection from evictions for all citizens is still not in reach.

Introduction

Last week, the Supreme Court of India handed down a judgment dealing with what has come to be known as “bulldozer raj”. For the last three years, in many parts of India, municipal authorities had taken to demolishing people’s homes if they were accused of an offence, especially in the wake of communal tensions or large-scale protests.

• Nature of demolitions: These demolitions were often, although not always, communally targeted, and in their wake, politicians were seen to publicly celebrate and endorse this form of state-sponsored “vigilante justice”.
• Courts’ judgement:  In its judgment, the Court came down heavily on this practice, noting that it violated the basic principles of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and turned the executive into judge, jury, and executioner.
• The Court declared that no person’s home could be demolished merely because they stood accused or even convicted of an offence, and issued a set of guidelines to prevent this kind of state action.

A trail of significant issues

• Delay in addressing vigilante demolitions: This pattern of vigilante demolition of homes — what scholars refer to as “domicide” — has been taking place for at least three years now.
  • It had begun in the wake of the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens protests, and has multiplied across the country since then.
  • Many of these demolitions were challenged in courts including the Supreme Court, but it is only now that the Court chose to act.
  • This raises serious questions about the Court’s delay in addressing such a foundational threat to the rule of law.
• Redress and compensation for past demolitions: But also, it raises questions about redress and compensation for past acts, now ruled to be illegal.
  • In its judgment, while the Court held that state officials responsible for illegal demolitions would be held personally liable for compensation and redress, it failed to clarify how its judgment would apply to all the demolitions that had taken place so far, and how it would aid the victims of such demolitions, who have been rendered homeless.
  • This is a significant omission.
• Two-faced nature of the state: Second, it is important to understand the two-faced nature of the state on the issue of demolitions.
  • While politicians and Ministers would celebrate these demolitions as having delivered instant justice, with a view to dog-whistling to their constituencies, the municipal authorities who were actually responsible for the demolitions and had to defend them in Court, would invoke the much more prosaic justification of “illegal” or “irregular” constructions.
  • The state never argued in Court that it was engaged in vigilante, or retributive, demolitions.
• Court’s framing of the main question: Thus, when the Court framed the main question in the case as being “whether it is permissible for the State to demolish the home of someone merely because they have been accused of an offence”, it was setting up a straw man as nobody had ever claimed that such a thing was permissible.
  • The actual claim was that the invocation of municipal building laws and “irregular construction” was a facade to legally justify what were, in effect, targeted and punitive demolitions.

Court’s Awareness of the Issue

• In fact, a close reading of the judgment demonstrates that the Court, too, was aware of this.
• At one point in the judgment, it noted that if, for example, one home in a locality was singled out for demolition while surrounding homes were left untouched, that would be an indication of mala fide state action.
• At another point, it discussed how the demolition of an individual’s home affected their (innocent) family as well, and that “collective punishment” was impermissible under Indian law.
• As both these events actually happened in the recent past, it is unclear why the Court used the language of hypotheticals rather than addressing the material reality before it.
• The judgment, thus, reads like an indirect approach to the actual problem at hand, and reflects a hesitation on the part of the Court to identify the problem in clear terms.

The core of the judgment

• The Guidelines: The court’s attempt to address the problem: This, then, brings us to the most important part of the judgment — the Guidelines — which represent the Court’s actual attempt to address the problem.
• Objective of the guidelines: A perusal of the Guidelines reveals that the Court’s objective was to prevent the state from using demolitions as a political weapon by introducing two crucial requirements into the procedure: of transparency, and of due process.
• Due process requirements: The Court held that before any demolition, the state would have to serve notice upon the person whose home it proposed to demolish, and provide them with at least 15 days to reply.
  • There would have to be a personal hearing, and even after the order of demolition became final, the affected person had a right of appeal, which again required the state to stay its hand for at least 15 days.
• Prevention of Instant “Mob” justice: As the entire purpose of “bulldozer raj” was to serve a form of instant “mob” justice at the instance of the state (regardless of guilt or innocence), it is to be hoped that these due process guidelines will throw enough sand into the gears of the bulldozer to preclude such actions in the future.
• Transparency requirements: The Court also went an extra mile and mandated transparency requirements in order to prevent “backdating” of notices (a long-standing problem).
• Proportionality requirement: Most importantly, it introduced a “proportionality” requirement into the process: municipal officials were required to explain, in writing, why the extreme step of demolition was the only option available, and why, for example, regularisation (through payment of compounding fees), or demolishing only a part of the structure, was not possible.
• Effect of proportionality requirement: This requirement, once again, would make municipal officials think twice before engaging in instant demolitions.
• Accountability for illegal demolitions: The Court gave this teeth as well, by holding that in cases of illegal demolitions, erring officers would be personally liable.
• A Sincere effort by the court: These Guidelines, thus, represent a sincere and committed effort by the Court to check the menace of “bulldozer raj”.
• Effectiveness going forward: It now remains to be seen how effective they will be going forward, and much of this will depend on how other Benches will implement these Guidelines, when fresh cases come to the Court.
• Past ineffectiveness of detailed guidelines: In previous cases involving lynching and hate speech, for example, we have seen detailed guidelines.
  • But these have been ineffective because the Court has refrained from following up on and enforcing its own judgment when violations take place.
• Hope for future enforcement: It is to be hoped that this order will not meet the same fate.

A section that is still vulnerable

• The other thing to note is that the Court made an exception in its judgment for structures on certain kind of public land (such as abutting a railway track, or a road).
• A look at this exception makes it clear that it would exclude from its protective ambit, slums and informal settlements where the most vulnerable and marginalised sections of society live.
• If anything, it is such individuals living in permanent precarity who are most in need of the Court’s protection.
• There is also no reason why requirements of notice and proportionality should not apply to such individuals as well.

Conclusion

No doubt, the Court’s mind was on punitive and targeted demolitions, as that was the case before it. However, the partial application of its judgment shows that there is a long way to go, and struggles still to engage in, when it comes to securing a meaningful right to shelter and protection from evictions for all the citizens of this country.

---

Editorial 2: The ‘new’ Justitia and reimagining justice

Context

It is important to ask whether the interpretation now attributed to an open-eyed justice relates to equality, impartiality, and transparency.

Introduction

The addition of the open-eyed Justitia in the Supreme Court of India has led to public debate. The ‘new’ six-foot white statue is a sari-clad ornamented goddess-like figure without a blindfold, holding scales in her right hand and a copy of the Constitution of India in her left hand. It signified, said then Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, who commissioned the statue in October 2024, that “Law is not blind; it sees everyone equally”. This is, historically speaking, puzzling since the Bombay High Court has an open-eyed Justitia statue along with a Statue of Mercy — the open-eyed justice is as much part of colonial iconography as the blindfolded figure of justice.

History and the images

• Cultural origins: The former CJI does not tell us that allegorical images of Justitia, both with and/or without a blindfold, have existed in ancient Roman, Greek, and Egyptian cultures.
  • Martin Jay in ‘Must Justice be Blind?’ (1999) argues that iconography historians tell us that “allegorical images of justice did not always cover the eyes of goddess Justitia”.
• Roman depictions of justitia: During the first and second centuries, Roman coins dedicated to justice and impartiality depicted Justitia as clear-sighted considering the merits of the cases before her.

Evolution of the Blindfold

• Introduction of the blindfold: It was at the end of the 15th century, evidenced through a 1494 wood engraving of a Fool tying the eyes of Justice, that a blindfold began to be placed over the goddess’s eyes, and led to a plethora of interpretations throughout Europe.
• Negative connotations of the blindfold: Initially, it implied that Justice was “robbed of her ability to get things straight, wield her sword effectively, or see what is balanced on her scales”.
• Transformation into a positive symbol: Away from this negative satirical connotation, the blindfold, by 1530, transformed into a positive emblem of equality before the law and impartiality.
  • Like the scales, the blindfold began to imply neutrality rather than helplessness, and resisting the ‘lust of the eyes’ became a virtue to achieve the dispassionate distance necessary to render impartial verdicts.

The mural in the Court

• The Open-Eyed Justice metaphor: Apart from the complicated history of Justitia, it is important to ask whether the interpretation now attributed to an open-eyed justice, or to use the ableist metaphor of ‘seeing’ by the lady justice, really relates to equality, impartiality, and transparency.
• Symbolism of the Hindu Goddess and white colour: What is the rationale behind the lady being presented as a Hindu goddess and the statue in white colour?
• Inspiration from the mural: The inspiration is perhaps the mural that is placed between the two entrances from the judges’ wing while entering the CJI’s court.
  • This mural is not open for public viewing.

Details of the Mural

• Research Access: This writer was privy to it during his research on courtroom iconography, in 2015-16.
• Description of the mural: It is made up of porcelain marble tiles in shades of white, yellow, and green, depicting Gandhi, the Dhamma Chakra, and the goddess of justice.
  • In the mural, the goddess is placed on the right side, facing left, wearing a crown, clad in a sari and jewellery, holding scales, and appearing as a devi (goddess), very much like this statue.
  • She holds the scales at the level of her face, with her gaze at the balance — the contemplative gaze is somewhat reminiscent of Johannes Vermeer’s painting of Justitia.

Interpretations of the Mural

• Judge M. Jagannadha Rao’s view: The mural with an open-eyed Justitia, with a book near her waist, found theological interpretation in the former Supreme Court judge M. J
  • Jagannadha Rao’s work who interpreted it as “the book of Dharma Shastra signifying the offer of total knowledge to one and all”, in the edited volume, Supreme but not Infallible: Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India (2000).
• The writer’s interpretation: In ‘Interpreting the Scales of Justice’ (2017), this writer interpreted the book besides the sari-clad Justitia as signifying the Indian Constitution, rather than the Dharma Shastra, which arguably restricted access to knowledge to certain caste/gender groups (Dwija men) and denied it to ‘others’.

Contemporary Context and Public Perception

• Statues and symbols in context: The placement of new statues of B.R. Ambedkar earlier and lady Justitia now, and having a new emblem for the Supreme Court, ought to be contextualised in relation to caste, gender, and religion-based inclusions and exclusions in recent times; especially when questions are asked of the higher judiciary on diversity and equality, attempts are being made to improve its public image.
• Social media interpretations: It is not surprising then that the open-eyed Justitia statue is interpreted in several ways on social media like “justice will now be given by seeing one’s caste, religious identity and political ideology”.
• Public desire for accessibility: Such an interpretation of the personification of justice has its roots in the public desire for accessibility to higher courts by all — not only as litigants but also as lawyers and judges, as well as access to justice itself.

Do not cause newer forms of discrimination

• Historical Context: Controversies around statues are not new.
  • Even the history of the ‘mother and child’ statue in the Court suggests so, as this writer has demonstrated in his 2017 work mentioned above.
• Inclusive representation: here needs to be a careful inclusive approach to how we want law and justice to be represented in a visual art form.
• Re-Envisioning Justice and key questions to consider: Should the idea of justice itself be re-envisioned?
  • Should justice be iconographically presented in the form of a protest, resistance, lived experience, and struggle?
  • Should it act as a transformative legal culture signifying feminist, anti-caste, secular, equality, judicial independence — virtues also enshrined in the basic structure doctrine?

Conclusion

There is a massive role of art and aesthetics that needs to be considered to tackle various creative challenges. Working on questions like – Should art and aesthetics, including statues, be utilised to creatively challenge the non-independence and hegemonisation of the judiciary by a select few, and to open discussions on improving its public perception? Decolonisation must not become a driver either of a recurrence of older precolonial or newer postcolonial forms of social discriminations and state violence.