The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission (MSHRC) has taken suo moto cognisance of a series of investigative reports published by The Indian Express concerning the unlawful arrest of a 15-year-old boy’s parents and the demolition of their scrap shop in Malvan. The incident, which unfolded in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match on February 23, 2025, has raised serious questions about due process, arbitrary state action, and the misuse of administrative power.
According to reports, the controversy began when a local resident associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) accused a teenage boy of raising so-called “anti-India” slogans during the cricket match. The allegations, based on overheard statements, led to a gathering of people outside the minor’s residence, creating a volatile atmosphere. Subsequently, the Malvan police registered an FIR against the boy and his parents, leading to their arrest. The municipal authorities then took swift and arbitrary action by demolishing their scrap shop without issuing a prior notice. Further revelations indicated that the residence of the boy’s paternal uncle was also demolished without following legal procedures.
SHRC Order Highlights Violations of Due Process and Rule of Law
As per the IE, taking suo-moto cognisance of the reports, the SHRC issued a strongly worded order, stating that a preliminary reading of the news items indicated a prima facie violation of legal due process. The order categorically noted that “the principles of rule of law, which form the foundation of democratic governance, have been flouted in this case.”
Reportedly, the commission also observed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, which protect individuals from arbitrary state action, had been severely compromised. It further emphasised that the criminal justice system, which requires a legal process to determine guilt, had been bypassed, with the administration usurping judicial functions. The order underlined that such actions violated the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, which is recognised as part of its basic structure.
The SHRC’s observations align with the Supreme Court’s November 2024 ruling, which explicitly directed that no demolition should take place within 15 days of a show-cause notice being issued unless the structure in question was an unauthorised construction in a public space such as a road or street. The fact that no such notice was served in this case suggests a blatant disregard for established legal safeguards.
The commission has sought a fact-finding inquiry report from the Sindhudurg district collector and the Superintendent of Police regarding the incident. A division bench comprising retired Justice Swapna Joshi and former IPS officer Sanjay Kumar is set to hear the matter.
Procedural lapses and political influence
It had also come to light that the MSHRC had been without a chairperson and member at the time the reports were first published on February 25, 26, and 27, 2025. The suo-motu cognisance was taken only after the new appointments were made, underscoring a delayed but necessary response from the human rights body.
The controversy erupted when Sachin Varadkar, a self-identified VHP worker, alleged that he had overheard the 15-year-old making “anti-national” remarks while riding past the boy’s home on his motorcycle. He later confronted the boy and escalated the matter by filing a police complaint. Within days, police had arrested the boy’s parents and detained the minor, sending him to an observation home. Meanwhile, the Malvan municipal authorities, reportedly acting on complaints from locals and a letter from Shiv Sena MLA Nilesh Rane, razed the family’s scrap shop. The demolition reportedly took place without official bulldozers, raising concerns that vigilante groups may have been involved.
Municipal Chief Officer Santosh Jirge initially justified the demolition, claiming that the scrap shop was an “unauthorised structure” and was obstructing traffic. However, further scrutiny revealed that the structure had been demolished the same day a complaint was received, without any due notice or legal verification. Jirge later admitted, as per the IE report, that no official record was available to determine when the structure was built, further exposing the arbitrary nature of the demolition. (Detailed story may be read here.)
Political backing and the role of the state
The demolition was openly endorsed by Shiv Sena MLA Nilesh Rane, who posted images of the razed shop on social media, boasting about the swift action taken against what he described as “a Muslim migrant scrap dealer.” Rane’s post suggested a communal motive behind the action, as he vowed to expel the family from the district. This raises serious concerns about the weaponisation of state machinery to target marginalised communities under the pretext of maintaining law and order.
Meanwhile, the arrested parents were eventually released on bail, and police have indicated that they will be filing a chargesheet against them. The charges, filed under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), and 3(5) (acts with common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, carry a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
Implications and the road ahead
The SHRC’s intervention in this case is a critical step towards holding the administration accountable for its actions. The commission’s preliminary observations highlight the dangerous precedent set by demolishing properties as an extrajudicial form of punishment. The incident underscores the increasing use of punitive demolitions against minority communities, a practice that has been widely criticised by human rights groups.
Many have pointed out that the incident reflects broader trends of erosion of due process, where municipal bodies, under pressure from political figures, carry out demolitions to appease majoritarian sentiments. The involvement of a right-wing MLA in publicly celebrating the demolition raises concerns about the fusion of political influence and administrative action in targeting vulnerable communities.
The SHRC’s demand for a fact-finding inquiry, if done without any political influence, will be pivotal in determining accountability in this case. If the commission’s final report confirms procedural lapses, it could set a legal precedent for challenging similar demolitions carried out under questionable circumstances. Additionally, it could serve as a test case for reinforcing the legal requirements surrounding demolition procedures, particularly in cases where communal and political factors appear to be at play.
Related:
A 15-year-old boy “accused”, family shop and home demolished in direct contravention of SC orders?