There's Laxity In Implementing Directions Against 'Bulldozer Actions'; Supreme Court Must Monitor : S Muralidhar

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar opined that there is laxity in the implementation of the directions given by the Supreme Court against the trend of "bulldozer justice", where houses of persons accused of crimes are demolished by authorities as a punitive measure.Although the Court has issued several directions to curb the rampant demolition of buildings as a punitive measure, the Court must continue monitoring if these directions are being followed. He suggested that the Court should employ the device of "continuing mandamus" to ascertain if the authorities were following the directions.He lamented that many petitions alleging violations of the Court's directions are not being listed in time. He was speaking at the launch of the book "[In]Complete Justice : The Supreme Court at 75" on August 27 in New Delhi. During the Q&A session, responding to an audience query regarding the continuation of "bulldozer actions" despite the Supreme Court judgment, Muralidhar said :"You(SC) have just laid down a judgment. Somebody is coming to you and pointing out that this judgment is being violated. And that case is not listed in good time. And this is a question that plagues me still. The Judges have to answer. The present Judges who have delivered the judgment have to answer this question. Becasue there is laxity in implementation. They should do what we call a "continuing mandamus". Some cases should not be closed with the judgment. This is what I personally believe, having been a judge for seventeen and a half years. There are some issues you know, unless you keep it for monitoring before yourself, the Executive is not going to implement it due to various other considerations. So it is up to those Judges, who delivered the Judgment, to craft the aftermath proceedings. Till they make sure that the instructions have been given down the line to implement, that rules have been amended, my own feeling is that those proceedings should not be closed. So this continuing mandamus is one device which some Judges should devise in such cases."He cited the example of the NALSA case, in which the Court issued directions for the welfare of transgender persons, where many had to go back to the Courts seeking implementation. "People had to go back, saying you have laid down a good judgment, but it is not getting implemented. The device of continuing mandamus is not applied across the board in all cases. There are certain cases where it is necessary. Because the implementation of the judgment is dependent on corrective action by the Executive and other bodies. If the pressure is put off the pedal, they won't act," he added.Dr. Muralidhar further observed that contempt petitions alleging violation of directions are sometimes not prioritized after the retirement of the judge who delivered the judgment, particularly if subsequent judges are not in agreement with the decision. "The Judges have to anticipate such situations and strategise," he said.He pointed out that after the retirement of Justice Madan B Lokur, the Social Justice Bench, which he headed, was discontinued. "When we have taken the law two steps forward, we should take it to the logical conclusion," he opined.The directions to curb the demolition of buildings as a punitive act were issued by a bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan in November last year in the case. The Court emphasised that an accused can be punished only after a trial in accordance with the law and that the executive cannot usurp the functions of the judiciary in determining the guilt of a person."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”. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of 'the rule of law', such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law," the Court observed in the judgment.After that, several contempt petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court alleging violation of the directions. In one such instance, the Court issued notice to a Maharashtra revenue officer after a Muslim man's house was demolished on the allegation that his son chanted anti-India slogans during an India-Pakistan cricket match.The discussion can be watched here.

There's Laxity In Implementing Directions Against 'Bulldozer Actions'; Supreme Court Must Monitor : S Muralidhar

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags