(Extracted with permission from Unsealed Covers: A Decade of the Constitution, the Courts, and the State by Gautam Bhatia, published by Harper Collins. Paragraph breaks have been added for readers’ convenience.)
Ongoing proceedings before the Supreme Court pertaining to the spate of home demolitions, which have been carried out across the country by municipal authorities, present a striking example of how judges can continuously reject the evidence of their eyes and ears. These proceedings follow a similar pattern. It is pointed out to the court (as we have discussed previously) that the home demolitions—which have now been going on in a sporadic fashion for many months—are punitive and designed to extract retribution for participation in protests.
The state counsel argues that the municipal authorities are acting in accordance with local laws. The Supreme Court bench—it tends to change—makes a rhetorical statement about how demolitions must follow the legal process, makes another rhetorical statement about how it can't pass 'omnibus' orders against the demolitions, and then adjourns the case, as it did today (while the demolitions continue).
In continuously refusing to take cognizance of the fact that the home demolitions are punitive and illegal and follow the same pattern across the country, these Supreme Court judges reject the evidence of their eyes and ears.