S. MURALIDHAR POINTS OUT LAPSES IN ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS ON 'BULLDOZER ACTIONS', CALLS FOR SUPREME COURT OVERSIGHT:

Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar expressed concern over the lax implementation of Supreme Court directions aimed at curbing the trend of “bulldozer justice,” where authorities demolish the homes of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. Speaking at the launch of the book “[In] Complete Justice: The Supreme Court at 75" on August 27 in New Delhi, he noted that although the Court has repeatedly issued directions to prevent such arbitrary demolitions, proper enforcement remains a challenge. Dr. Muralidhar suggested that the Supreme Court should actively monitor compliance with its orders through the mechanism of “continuing mandamus,” which allows judges to supervise the execution of judgments over a period of time. He lamented that many petitions alleging violations of Court directives are not listed promptly, delaying accountability and enforcement.

He elaborated that when a judgment is violated, the judges who delivered the decision must ensure that follow-up proceedings are crafted to guarantee implementation. He stressed that certain issues require ongoing monitoring because, in the absence of such oversight, executive authorities may fail to act due to other considerations. Continuing mandamus, he said, is a device whereby courts can keep cases open post-judgment until proper instructions are issued, rules amended, and enforcement ensured. This approach, he emphasized, is essential to ensure that progressive legal developments reach their logical conclusion and that the intended corrective action is taken by the executive.

Dr. Muralidhar cited the NALSA case, in which the Supreme Court issued directions for the welfare of transgender persons, as an example of where the absence of effective follow-up necessitated repeated litigation to secure implementation. He noted that the executive and other authorities often delay action unless the pressure from courts is sustained. He further observed that contempt petitions filed for non-compliance sometimes lose priority after the retirement of the judge who delivered the original judgment, particularly if successor judges do not fully endorse the earlier decisions. He recalled that after Justice Madan B. Lokur retired, the Social Justice Bench he headed was discontinued, which, in his view, weakened ongoing enforcement of progressive rulings.

The directions to curb punitive demolitions were issued by a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan in November of the previous year. The Court emphasized that accused individuals can be punished only after a proper trial in accordance with law, and the executive cannot assume judicial functions to determine guilt. The judgment noted that the demolition of a building without adherence to principles of natural justice and due process reflects a lawless exercise of power, where might is considered right. The Court underlined that such high-handed actions have no place in a constitutional democracy founded on the rule of law and must be met with the full force of legal remedies. Following the judgment, multiple contempt petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court alleging violations, including an instance in Maharashtra where a Muslim man’s house was demolished based on allegations against his son during a cricket match.