Former CJI Gavai speaks on impact of his ruling on 'bulldozer justice': 'If Executive does not conform to it...'

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai retired on November 23 as Chief Justice of India

Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling on “bulldozer justice”, former Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, said clear guidelines have been laid down about the procedure that needs to be followed if the Executive wants to go for demolition.

“If the Executive does not conform to it, it is clearly contempt of court. We had also laid down that if any officer violates the order, he/she would be personally held guilty of contempt and the government needed to reconstruct the demolished house and recover it from the salary of the officers,” said Gavai at an event held by Indian Express.

“Bulldozer action”, popularly known as “bulldozer justice”, is a euphemism for instant retributive action against alleged criminals by the state administration. Heavy-duty machinery is used to demolish houses of alleged criminals and rioters. As part of the action, houses, shops and small establishments across India have been bulldozed. After chief minister Yogi Adityanath assumed power in 2017, he issued a warning about using bulldozers against those involved in crime.

Speaking about the role of higher judiciary, Gavai said scrutiny should not affect the judges. "They are answerable to their conscience. They have to decide as per the law, the Constitution. They are not supposed to decide on the basis of whether people will like their decision or not. Judges are watchdogs of the Constitution. They are expected to protect the rights of the citizens. Whenever the question of liberty came and whenever the misuse of the agencies was being done for political reasons, I have always frowned upon such things," he said.

According to Gavai,  the collegium system has worked well. "With regard to the allegations of lack of transparency, we have tried to introduce certain new things. We interact with the candidates. It is not as if the government views are totally neglected. Even after we recommend a name, if the government has concerns, we take those into consideration. As to what lies in the future, I cannot say," he said.

He was part of the top court bench that  relaxed the firecracker ban in Delhi. On being asked if the order overlooked the reality of pollution, he said the court has been monitoring the issue for more than a decade. "A three-judge bench in 2020, after considering all the aspects and reports, had permitted the use of crackers. Then a year later, the two-judge bench imposed a total ban. I always believe that when we pass the orders, the orders should also be practical. I live in the Lutyens’ zone, so when there was a total ban, I could hear the noise of the crackers. So, this time when the government of India and the Union of India requested the court that at least on a trial basis, it should be permitted, we permitted for a window of two days. We also directed that a study should be done of the AQI levels," he told IE.