When Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai recently remarked that banning bulldozer actions gave him “immense satisfaction,” he perhaps meant to highlight compassion for families facing demolitions. Yet, in those words lies a disquieting truth. The shift of judicial reasoning from constitutional text to personal gratification. Courts are meant to uphold law, not feelings. When satisfaction becomes a touchstone, the boundary between impartial adjudication and judicial activism begins to blur.

The Law vs. the Bulldozer

The so-called “bulldozer justice” was never about architecture; it was about process.

The case in question was Jamiat Ulama I Hind vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation. In this matter, the petitioners challenged demolitions in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area, arguing that homes and

See Full Page