A comforting intervention

The Supreme Court's recent interim order halting demolitions across the country without its explicit permission is a strong and authoritative disapproval regarding the use of bulldozers as a tool for justice.

Over the past few years, the method of "punitive demolition" has been gaining traction in various states, where the homes of individuals accused of crimes are razed, allegedly without due process under the garb of combating illegal constructions. It goes without saying that such an arbitrary trend raises troubling questions about the misuse of power, the erosion of legal protections, and the broader implications for constitutional rights. The Supreme Court's order reflects its concern about the potential for executive overreach in these demolitions, especially when such actions appear to be taken as a punitive response to criminal accusations. As Justice KV.

Viswanathan puts it, even a single instance of illegal demolition is "against the ethos of the Constitution." The Court's emphasis on the need for judicial oversight in demolitions is a welcome move. It highlights the importance of adhering to the rule of law rather than resorting to unjust, arbitrary measures.