In recent times, state-sanctioned “illegal” demolitions have become a disturbing trend in India, often targeting individuals, mostly belonging to the marginalised or the religious minority communities, linked to alleged criminal activities or social unrest. These actions, frequently executed without proper legal notice or due process, have raised significant concerns about the abuse of power and the infringement of fundamental rights. The use of bulldozers to demolish homes has been criticized as a form of extrajudicial punishment, bypassing established legal procedures and undermining the rule of law, and has been termed as “bulldozer justice”. The Supreme Court of India has been approached multiple times to address these issues, reflecting the urgency and severity of the situation, however no concrete solution has come from the highest court of the country.
Today, the Supreme Court is set to hear two urgent applications challenging recent demolition actions by authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These pleas have been moved by the victims, Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh, whose homes were targeted. These cases will be taken up post-lunch by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan. Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned one of the applications earlier in the day, requesting it be heard alongside the ongoing Brinda Karat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors case, which challenges the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri.
Mentioning the present case, Singh had highlighted the plight of a family whose ancestral home was partially demolished on the same day a family member was arrested, leaving the house inaccessible. As underscored by Singh, the said demolition occurred without any prior notice, raising serious concerns about the legality of the action.
As per LiveLaws report, CU Singh had said “An application has been filed pertaining to an ancestral home…on the same day that one of the family members was arrested, the front of the ancestral home was demolished, making the entire place inaccessible…without any notice, without anything…if Your Lordships could list the IA alongwith…This is a person who is personally [injured]”.
Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil mentioned the other application, wherein a house in Udaipur was demolished because the tenant’s son was accused in a criminal case.
“[Here], a house of a person in Udaipur was demolished because his tenant’s son was accused in a criminal case. He is personally aggrieved, he has also filed an IA. That may also be taken on record”, she said.
These above-mentioned cases are part of a larger pattern of state authorities using demolitions as punitive measures. The petitions echo concerns raised in earlier cases, including the 2022 Jahangirpuri demolition drive, where the Supreme Court had stayed the action but was urged to declare that authorities cannot use bulldozers as a form of punishment. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing some petitioners, had then emphasized that the right to a home is integral to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and called for the reconstruction of homes that were unlawfully demolished.
Details of the illegal demolitions in Udaipur and Madhya Pradesh:
Two pleas have been submitted to the Supreme Court, seeking directions to prevent the Central and State governments from using bulldozers to demolish homes or shops of individuals accused in criminal cases as a form of extra-legal punishment.
One of the applications was filed by Rashid Khan, a 60-year-old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur, whose house was demolished by the Udaipur district administration on August 17, 2024. This action followed communal clashes in Udaipur after a Muslim schoolboy allegedly stabbed his Hindu classmate, who later died from his injuries. The incident led to the issuance of a prohibitory order, after which vehicles were set on fire, and markets were closed. Khan, the father of the accused schoolboy, stated in his plea that his house was demolished illegally, arbitrarily, and with malicious intent in a rushed operation carried out by the Regional Forest Officer of Udaipur West, the Government of Rajasthan, and the Udaipur Municipal Corporation. The authorities claimed that the house had encroached on forest land. According to The Indian Express, the family received a notice from the forest department on the morning of the demolition, but the landlord failed to provide ownership documents. Despite attempts by Khan to stop the demolition by approaching the municipal corporation and the police, both were unresponsive. In a video that surfaced after the demolition, Khan, who identified himself as the landlord, mentioned that four other families also lived in the house and were asked to vacate. Khan expressed his anguish, stating that he lost his home without any fault of his own.
Similarly, Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh has also alleged that his house and shop were unlawfully bulldozed by the state administration. Both Khan and Hussain’s applications were filed in the context of a case previously submitted by Jamiat Ulama I Hind, which objected to the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh following communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.
Previous hearings in 2023:
On September 26, 2023, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave had raised serious concerns about the increasing trend of state governments demolishing the homes of individuals accused of crimes. He emphasized that the right to a home is a fundamental aspect of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Dave’s remarks had then come during a hearing before the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Misra, which was considering a series of petitions related to a 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. This said Jahangirpuri demolition had been stayed by the Supreme Court, and the bench was also addressing broader issues regarding the use of demolitions as punishment by states against those accused of crimes.
Earlier, on July 10, 2023, Dave had expressed his concerns about the impact of ‘bulldozer justice’ on the families of accused individuals whose homes were demolished. He urged the Supreme Court to ‘settle the law’ on whether the state could exercise such powers, particularly when these actions appeared to target specific communities. Dave pointed out that the majority of those affected by the demolition notices in Jahangirpuri were Muslims, a claim that Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta sharply criticized as an ‘off-the-cuff submission.’ Mehta had countered it by stating that the area was predominantly Hindu, many of whom were also impacted by the demolition drive.
Despite this exchange, Dave continued to stress the urgent need for the court to establish clear legal guidelines to prevent the state from using demolitions as a form of punishment. He argued that the practice had become widespread, with states increasingly adopting bulldozer tactics to destroy homes of the accused, often even before any conviction. Dave highlighted the suffering of families whose homes were being destroyed unjustly, questioning what they had done to deserve such punishment. He urged the court to intervene, emphasizing that the right to a home is an integral part of the right to life and must be protected by law.
“But you’ll have to decide this once and for all. Every state is adopting this method of using bulldozers and demolishing homes. Everywhere, it has become a fashion. Imagine the plight of the families. The homes of accused people are being destroyed even before their conviction. Even if they were convicted, the court could not have imposed this sentence of demolition of their houses. Families are suffering. However heinous an alleged crime may be, you cannot go and demolish people’s homes. What have their families done to invite this punishment? This will need to be heard and the law needs to be laid down. This court must intervene because the right to a home is a part of the right to life,” Dave had then said.
Related:
Mumbai: Hundreds of people displaced after demolitions in Jai Bhim Nagar
Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty
‘Ethnic cleansing by State?’ HC stops Haryana’s Nuh & Gurugram demolitions