How ‘bulldozer justice’ undermines the law

The sight of a five-year-old gifting a toy to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on March 27 at Gorakhpur made for a tender photo moment. The Chief Minister returned the gift and asked the child to focus on her studies.

A child showing her admiration for a political leader is nothing out of the ordinary, as leaders are meant to be role models for the younger generation. But the five-year-old’s choice of toy — a replica of a bulldozer — raises uncomfortable questions. The episode not only shows public approval for “bulldozer justice”, it also reflects the normalisation of extrajudicial action by the state. What is arguably a problematic political symbol is now part of our everyday consciousness and holds the potential to influence impressionable minds.

The much-hailed “bulldozer justice” model isn’t just a negation of the concept of due process but a direct challenge to it.

Not the first time

Though “bulldozer justice” is now part of India’s political lexicon, the concept of bulldozers being used as an instrument of state policy is not new. Instances of bulldozers being used to clear encroachments and demolish unauthorised houses in Old Delhi’s Turkman Gate area in 1976 — when the country was under the Emergency imposed by the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi— have been well chronicled.

However, there is a key difference in how such actions have been perceived over time. From being examined as part of the excesses of the Emergency by a judicial commission, bulldozer action is now being amplified as a symbol of the state’s firmness in dealing with those who break the law. It is premised on the fact that judicial processes are cumbersome and come in the way of delivering instant retributive justice. In an era of 10-minute deliveries, government authorities are not immune to the same pressure. And since the judicial process does not follow a fixed timeline, some argue that this pressure is multiplied.

The drive for ‘instant’ justice

The backlog of cases across all courts in India has crossed 5.5 crore, with the figure in the Supreme Court alone accounting for over 90,000 cases. The India Justice Report 2025 noted that there are only 15 judges for every million Indians, as against a 1987 Law Commission of India recommendation of 50 judges per one million. In 22 of the 25 States, the same report noted, cases pending for over three years in subordinate courts amount to 25% of all pending cases. And across 25 High Courts, the number of cases which are pending for over five years account for 51%.

The burden of proof and the long road to litigation often act as a deterrent and, therefore, common citizens prefer quick justice. And when government authorities are under constant scrutiny and quick feedback, the pressure of “instant delivery of justice” is quite high.

But what an individual prefers, even a majority of them, cannot be the state’s choice. In a state governed by the rule of law, there is no place for majoritarian populism. The tenets of criminal jurisprudence consider any crime against an individual as one against society. And the state can dispense justice only in accordance with the law.

The problem with bulldozer justice lies precisely in the fact that it substitutes spectacle for procedure. Demolitions carried out immediately after an alleged offence, often before investigations are completed, blur the distinction between punishment and an extrajudicial action carried out by the state. In such cases, the state assumes the role of investigator, judge and executioner at once. This dissolution of power between the organs of the state undermines the very principles that underpin a constitutional democracy.

There is another aspect that is often overlooked. If the demolitions of the homes of the accused are for purported violations of land or municipal laws, it begs the question: why did the government allow such a structure in the first place? Is it an admission that a corrupt system allowed such a home to be built right before the gaze of law enforcers? But if the demolitions are meant to convey a message of zero tolerance towards crime, then it runs foul of the law. The state cannot reduce itself to the level of vigilante groups, whose main purpose of existence is to hand out “instant justice”.

The image of swift destruction creates an impression of decisive leadership, but it also normalises the idea that executive authority can override legal safeguards whenever public anger demands immediate retribution. Over time, this risks weakening institutional credibility and erodes citizens’ trust in lawful processes.

Strengthen institutions

The real solution to public frustration with the justice system lies not in bypassing it, but in strengthening it. Expanding judicial capacity, filling vacancies, modernising court infrastructure and improving investigative processes would address the underlying causes of delay far more effectively than theatrical displays of coercive powers. Cases involving heinous crimes must be mandatorily assigned to fast-track courts that are focused on speedy disposals with frequent hearings. 

However, a constitutional state derives its legitimacy not from the speed of punishment but from its unimpeachable principles and the fairness of its processes. “Bulldozer justice” may satisfy a demand for instant retribution, but it erodes the foundations of the rule of law and risks reducing the state to a vigilante group.