The separation of powers is a fundamental principle of a democratic system, where the legislature frames laws, the executive implements them, and the judiciary interprets them. This delineation of roles ensures checks and balances within governance. However, there is a growing perception that the Indian judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, is increasingly stepping into domains traditionally reserved for the executive and legislative branches. Recent judicial interventions, such as the Supreme Court’s bench threatening to frame guidelines against the use of bulldozers to demolish properties of alleged offenders, have sparked a debate on whether the judiciary is exceeding its brief. Critics argue that the judiciary’s role is to ensure that laws passed by democratically elected governments align with the Constitution, not to interfere in day-to-day governance. They believe that the courts, by involving themselves in executive actions, such as administrative decisions on law and order, are encroaching on the powers of the elected representatives who have the mandate to govern. For instance, several states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Assam, and Madhya Pradesh have used bulldozers as a tool to dismantle illegal properties associated with criminals, a method seen as a measure to combat rampant crime. Supporters claim this strategy has been effective in restoring law and order and has significantly reduced crime rates in these states.
Uttar Pradesh, under the leadership of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, has become synonymous with this “bulldozer policy.” It is credited with bringing down crime rates and creating a conducive environment for development and investment by dismantling the properties of hardened criminals. The success of this policy in Uttar Pradesh has led to its adoption in other states, such as Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Even the Congress-led government in Telangana, under Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy, has implemented similar tactics to remove unauthorized structures from lake beds, underscoring the broader acceptance of such measures across party lines. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the law and order problems in these states, has raised questions about the legality and constitutionality of demolishing properties without due process. Justice B.R. Gavai, in his observation, questioned, “How can anybody’s house be demolished only because he is an accused? Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.” This intervention has stirred up a hornet’s nest, with critics accusing the judiciary of being overzealous and undermining the authority of elected governments. Those who view the judiciary’s actions as overreach argue that such steps undermine the executive’s ability to enforce law and order effectively. They claim that judicial activism could potentially weaken governance by creating a precedent where every administrative action is subjected to legal scrutiny, resulting in delays and inefficiencies. For example, following the legal route for demolitions often involves issuing notices, waiting for replies, and allowing for court appeals, which can drag on for years, often without resolution. This procedural rigmarole, critics argue, makes it nearly impossible to act decisively against criminal elements.
However, the judiciary’s defenders argue that its role is not just to interpret laws but also to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens. They contend that demolishing properties without due process violates the principle of natural justice and the right to property. By issuing guidelines, the Supreme Court is not overstepping but rather ensuring that any action taken by the state is within the framework of the law. In a democracy, the rule of law must prevail over the rule of men, and no government, however well-intentioned, should be allowed to bypass legal procedures. Furthermore, the judiciary’s critics often point to instances of judicial overreach without considering the failures of the legislative and executive branches. For instance, the delay in providing justice due to an overburdened legal system is a significant issue, but it does not justify bypassing legal processes altogether. The judiciary’s role becomes even more crucial when elected governments use populist measures that might infringe upon individual rights under the guise of maintaining law and order. While it is essential to ensure that law and order are maintained, it is equally critical to uphold the Constitution. Both the judiciary and the executive need to work within their respective domains while respecting each other’s roles. The Supreme Court’s recent interventions are a reminder that while governments have the authority to act, they must do so within the bounds of law. At the same time, the judiciary must exercise restraint and focus on more pressing issues, such as clearing the massive backlog of cases, rather than getting entangled in executive actions unless absolutely necessary. The Indian democracy thrives on balance, and it is this balance that must be maintained to prevent any one branch of government from overshadowing the others.
