While the Supreme Court’s desire to manage its caseload is understandable, there is a significant risk that transferring contempt petitions to High Courts could dilute the impact of its landmark 2024 anti-demolition ruling. Critics argue that when the apex court declines to directly address allegations of 'bulldozer justice,' it may inadvertently signal to state authorities that they can continue with selective demolitions with less fear of immediate intervention from the highest level. For families and communities facing the sudden loss of their homes, the delay inherent in moving cases to High Courts can be devastating.
There is also a concern that the 'factual disputes' cited by the bench are often a convenient shield for authorities to bypass the spirit of the 2024 judgment. When politicians or local officials use bulldozers as a tool of reprisal, they often frame these actions as routine municipal enforcement. If the Supreme Court does not maintain a direct role in overseeing these cases, there is a danger that the safeguards it established will be eroded by inconsistent interpretations or slow-moving processes in lower courts. The urgency of protecting citizens from arbitrary state power requires a more direct and consistent oversight mechanism.
For many, the use of bulldozers is not just a matter of municipal law, but a fundamental challenge to the presumption of innocence and the right to shelter. By relegating these matters to High Courts, the Supreme Court risks losing the momentum it built in 2024. The public interest demands that the highest court in the land remains the ultimate guardian against the misuse of state power, especially when that power is used to target individuals in a way that shocks the conscience of the legal community.