Mumbai’s Habitat Studio felt the impact of demolition twice for no fault other than hiring their premises to comedian Kunal Kamra. Shiv Sena workers deemed Kamra’s remarks against Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde insulting. They vandalised the studio, using bare hands to vent their rage. Civic authorities followed shortly after, wielding hammers to bring down still intact sections, citing municipal rule violations. Heated exchanges over the incident included messages that studios hosting Kamra in the future may not be spared, but with the caveat: punitive action would be initiated if such studios violated construction norms.
That gives the game away. Bulldozers have razed hundreds of homes, businesses and shops in several states in the name of chastising those not conforming to the dominant political ideology. Administrations have initiated swift action on the grounds of rule violations without waiting for court sanctions. Last November, the Supreme Court finally intervened, laying down national guidelines for carrying out demolitions. Instances of alleged extra-judicial punishment continued to be reported nevertheless.
The judiciary and the executive appear to be on the brink of a widening schism on this issue. Some claim the ‘punishments’ are the outcome of the state machinery and non-state political actors appearing to independently zero in on the same course of action. These actions can be interpreted as the result of the executive appropriating the adjudicatory role of the judiciary, contravening the principle of separation of powers. That attacks the democratic core that the state cannot silence citizens’ free speech by threatening demolitions. Civil society advocates interpret these instances as exercises to penalise targeted groups challenging political messaging. The judiciary must look beyond the mere illegality of such demolitions and examine the political narrative that provokes extra-judicial action. It is the ruling party that is found to be taking the law into its own hands, leaving citizens vulnerable. The political objective seems to be to target ideological adversaries, not merely punish violators of municipal rules.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has already questioned in a demolition case if it was undertaken “under the guise of law and order problem and an exercise of ethnic cleansing is being conducted by the state”. The judiciary is aware that, in Justice B R Gavai’s words, the inability to uphold the rule of law can “erode public confidence in the justice system”.