Introduction

Recently, Supreme Court (SC) issued pan-India guidelines on the demolition of private properties. The Court held that demolition of buildings without adhering to the principles of Natural Justice, and due process of law corresponds to a state of lawlessness where ‘might is right’. The Court also pointed out that instances of instant justice are misadventures depicting the arbitrary executive action and stand against the constitutional ethos and values.  

Key Guidelines issued by the Court

• Prior Notice: No demolition is to be carried out without a prior show cause notice served to the owner of the property. 
• The opportunity of being heard: The concerned person should be given an opportunity of a personal hearing by the designated authority. 
• Process of Demolition: The proceedings should be video-graphed, and recording should be duly preserved. 
• Safeguard against violation: The court held that violation of its directions would attract contempt proceedings along with prosecution of the concerned authorities. 
• Not applicability: Guidelines are not applicable in cases of unauthorized construction or court-ordered demolitions. 

Stakeholders and their Interest in Instant justice

Concept of Justice

Justice is the ethical, philosophical idea that everyone should be treated fairly and equally by the law. Justice is not a static concept, but rather one that is constantly evolving.

Major Theories on Justice

• Utilitarian theory: Given by Jeremy Bentham, it entails justice to a social order where the largest number of people has the highest satisfaction. 
• Rawl’s Theory of Justice: He proposed two principles of justice: the principle of equal basic liberties and the difference principle. 
  • The former ensures equal rights and freedoms for all, while the latter allows for inequalities as long as they benefit the least advantaged members of society.
• Amartya Sen’s Theory of Justice (Capability Approach): As per this theory, a just and fair society provides people with the freedom to develop abilities like access to a healthier lifestyle or education to enhance their functioning. 

Type of Justice 

Reasons behind growing cases of instant justice

• Diminishing Faith in Justice Delivery System: Law Commission (239^th report) highlighted that inordinate delays in justice has eroded fear and faith in law, reinforcing the belief that "justice delayed is justice denied".
  • This growing distrust pushes individuals toward seeking immediate, extrajudicial resolutions.
• Individual morality and legal ignorance: Many are unaware of the legal processes and jurisprudence or believe that instant mob punishment is the only way of doing justice.
• Lack of emotional intelligence: In cases involving rape, murder, or child abuse, emotions run high, often triggering impulsive acts of revenge from the community.
• Misinformation: Misinformation or viral content on social media can mobilize crowds quickly, often without a clear understanding of the facts, leading to vigilante justice.
• Compromised ethical journalism: The media's role in sensationalizing crime stories often stokes public outrage, leading to impulsive mob actions. 
  • Sensationalism undermines ethical journalism, which should promote fairness and objectivity rather than fuel mob mentality.
• Public Perception: Instances of encounters by Police, especially in cases of sexual assault are often welcomed by public and regarded as strong deterrent for the future. 

Ethical Issues involved in instant Justice

• Rule of Law vs. Rule by Law: Rule of law ensures equality before the law, while rule by law implies the powerful using laws for control. Instant justice erodes idea of rule of law, replacing it with arbitrary or biased judgment.
• Due Process of Law vs. Swift Justice: Instant justice skips legal safeguards, denying the accused their right to a fair trial (Article 21). Thus, it compromises with the principle of ‘deemed to be innocent until proven guilty’. 
  • The principle of due process ensures no one loses life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure.
• Retributive vs. Reformative Justice: Instant justice often embodies worst aspects of retributive justice, where punishment is handed out swiftly without considering whether it is proportional or justified.
• Principle of natural justice vs. arbitrary justice:  No person can be punished without a fair opportunity to be heard, forms basis of requirements of natural justice (Audi alteram partem).
  • Instant justice is driven by emotions like anger or revenge, clouding judgment and leading to unfair outcomes.
• Means vs. Ends debate: Whether achieving a desirable or just result (like Perceived deterrence in cases of criminality) can justify using methods that might violate fundamental ethical principles or legal procedures.
  • Instant justice may undermine the institutions of justice and violates moral duties, and may leading to chaos and a breakdown of societal order.

Way Forward

• Balancing retributive justice with restorative justice: It allows for the repair of harm, rather than solely focusing on punitive measures. 
  • It can facilitate ensuring ‘Justice should not only be done it must be seen to be done. i.e., “nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”
• Sensitization: Conducting widespread awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the legal process, their rights, and the consequences of vigilante actions.

• Judicial reforms:  To combat growing instances of instant justice, it is essential to focus on judicial reforms that enhance transparency, efficiency, and accountability within the legal system, thereby restoring public confidence.
  • Additionally, Supreme Court rulings offering crucial guidelines for addressing instant justice given in D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1996), PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) etc. can be implemented.
• Fostering Accountability of Institutions: The mandate of the Police should ensure that constitutionally protected right of the accused to prove their innocence in a court is protected. 

Conclusion

The desire for quick, fair and affordable justice is universal. Protection of life and liberty have been given a pre-eminent position in our Constitution by enacting Article 21 as a fundamental right and imposing a duty on the State to protect life and personal liberty of every citizen. Any deprivation or breach of this valuable right is not permissible unless the procedure prescribed by law for that purpose is just, fair and reasonable. The entire existence of the orderly society depends upon sound and efficient functioning of the Criminal Justice System.