At the Legally Speaking 3rd Law and Constitutional Dialogue event, a debate unfolded on pressing issues within India’s judicial system, focusing on the controversial concept of “Bulldozer Justice” and the challenges of addressing the judicial backlog. The panel featured political analyst Tehsin Poonawala, BJP leader Sudhanshu Mittal, and former Delhi Police Commissioner S.N. Srivastav, each offering distinct perspectives on law enforcement, judicial delays, and the need for systemic reform.
Bulldozer Justice: Popular Appeal vs. Legal Overreach
The concept of Bulldozer Justice has garnered public support for its swift action against illegal encroachments and high-profile criminals. However, Sudhanshu Mittal cautioned against the potential risks of bypassing established legal processes. “While people must fear the law in a civilized society,” he said, “it’s essential to ensure that actions like demolitions follow legal procedures.”
Mittal argued that the judiciary’s delays in resolving cases have led to frustration, making Bulldozer Justice appear as an immediate solution. However, he emphasized that reactionary justice could lead to overreach and undermine faith in due process. He highlighted inconsistencies in laws governing demolition and encroachment across states, calling for a unified approach that respects the rule of law.
Defending the Rule of Law
Tehsin Poonawala strongly supported adherence to legal processes, asserting that even the most notorious criminals should not face extrajudicial punishment. “No one should be punished outside the court system,” he declared, referencing a detailed 95-page judgment that outlines procedures for demolishing public property, including a mandatory 15-day eviction notice.
Poonawala acknowledged Mittal’s concerns about judicial overreach but emphasized that the separation of powers must be upheld. He warned against using Bulldozer Justice as a blanket approach, urging policymakers to prioritize fairness over expedience.
Need for Speedy Justice
S.N. Srivastav addressed the growing frustration with delayed justice, advocating for methods to expedite legal proceedings without compromising standards. Citing the example of Vikas Dubey, where demolition was used as a tool against criminality, he warned against normalizing such measures. “Laws on encroachment, especially concerning government lands, must be implemented methodically, not reactively,” Srivastav remarked.
He also called for reforms to address procedural delays, such as timely filing of chargesheets, which directly impact bail proceedings. Additionally, he supported increasing the number of courts and reducing adjournments to improve the pace of justice delivery.
Judicial Reforms: A Way Forward
The panelists collectively highlighted the urgent need for judicial reforms to tackle the backlog of pending cases. Poonawala proposed several measures, including raising the retirement age of judges, establishing regional branches of the Supreme Court, and leveraging AI to resolve simpler civil disputes. He stressed the importance of decentralizing the judiciary to ensure greater access to justice.
Mittal agreed on the need for reforms but urged caution regarding the Supreme Court’s involvement in matters traditionally under the purview of other courts or legislative bodies.
Balancing Expediency and Fairness
The discussion underscored the complexities of implementing Bulldozer Justice while maintaining the rule of law. While swift action may be appealing to an exasperated public, the panelists stressed the importance of balancing efficiency with fairness. Legal actions must adhere to constitutional principles to ensure justice is both timely and equitable.
The event offered valuable insights into the challenges and potential solutions for India’s judicial system. From addressing delays to ensuring accountability in enforcement, the debate highlighted the need for a comprehensive approach to judicial reform, fostering a system that upholds justice, efficiency, and fairness for all citizens.
Read More: Lok Sabha MP Karti Chidambaram Advocates For More Women, Not More MPs
