Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi’s judgment in Kumarpur Sasan Juba Gosti Kendra v. State of Odisha marks a strong judicial stand against the rise of “bulldozer justice,” where state authorities act in haste, often with impunity, demolishing property without observing due process or waiting for judicial outcomes. The Court described the demolition not as an administrative misstep but as an act of executive aggression conducted “while the law was still at work.”

“This is not a procedural misstep. It reflects a troubling pattern, where the machinery of the State appears to act not in aid of the law, but in anticipation of avoiding its outcome. The space between a matter being heard and a decision being delivered is not an empty procedural formality. It is a phase in which the law is still at work. The authority of the appellate forum does not vanish simply because it is silent for a moment. That silence is deliberate. It reflects the court’s duty to think, not the executive’s opportunity to act.” (Para 12)

Factual Matrix: A community centre razed in defiance of judicial orders

The case concerned a community structure (Gosthigruha) situated on 0.05 acres of grazing land (gochar) in Balipur, Athagarh, Cuttack district. Though classified as Rakhita Anabadi land under the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (OPLE Act), the structure had existed in some form since 1985, repaired after the 1999 cyclone, and reconstructed between 2016 and 2018 using public funds from the “Ama Gaon Ama Vikas Yojana” and the MLA-LAD fund.

For over three decades, the structure was actively used for public welfare activities—yoga camps, health check-ups, awareness campaigns, and outreach programmes. The State itself had funded the structure, and no recorded objection had ever been raised by authorities prior to 2024.

In July 2024, eviction proceedings were initiated under the OPLE Act. Petitioners challenged these proceedings before the High Court, which disposed of the petitions on August 16, 2024, directing them to apply for settlement under Section 8A of the Act. When this application was rejected on flimsy grounds—including lack of registration and documentary gaps—the petitioners filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector and simultaneously sought judicial protection.

On November 29, 2024, the Orissa High Court ordered that no eviction was to take place during the pendency of the appeal. A fresh eviction notice was nevertheless issued on December 5, 2024. The Court reiterated its protective order on December 13, 2024, restraining demolition until the appellate process concluded.

In open defiance of this, demolition was carried out the very next morning, on December 14, less than 18 hours after the Sub-Collector concluded the appeal hearing and reserved the order (at 4 PM), and just an hour after a demolition notice was suddenly affixed (at 5:15 PM).

Observations of the Court

“A deliberate act taken while judicial consideration was underway”: Justice Panigrahi’s ruling is remarkable for its constitutional clarity, moral tone, and emphasis on institutional accountability. The Court concluded that:

“What makes the episode all the more concerning is not merely the breach of procedural safeguards, but the deeper disregard to constitutional process and institutional boundaries. The demolition did not occur in a moment of administrative necessity. It was not the outcome of a duly completed adjudicatory process. It was carried out while the matter was still under active judicial consideration, with the appellate authority having reserved its decision. No final order had been pronounced.” (Para 11)

The Court noted that the executive had ample knowledge of pending judicial directions. The demolition, it held, was executed not just in violation of legal mandates but with the intent to frustrate judicial scrutiny. This conduct, the Court declared, not only breached the rule of law but constituted a direct assault on the very architecture of constitutional governance.

Condemnation of “Bulldozer Justice”: The Court also expressed concern about what it termed an emerging pattern of “bulldozer justice”—the use of demolition as a tool of state power without regard to legality, process, or proportionality.

“The facts of this case echo a growing and troubling pattern commonly referred to as “bulldozer justice”, where executive power, backed by machinery rather than reason, supplants legal process. The use of demolition as a tool of enforcement, absent procedural compliance and judicial finality, transforms what should be a lawful act into a coercive one. It is not the bulldozer per se that offends constitutional sensibilities, but the ease with which it is deployed before the law has spoken its final word. In a system governed by law, force must follow reason, not precede it. Where the reverse occurs, the legitimacy of State action begins to erode, and with it, the credibility of institutions tasked with upholding the rule of law.” (Para 25)

The judgment emphasised that in a constitutional democracy, force must follow reason, not precede it. The failure to uphold judicial restraint not only violated the rule of law but “demolished the dignity of law-abiding citizens who sought protection not through confrontation but through courts.”

Violation of Supreme Court directives in “Demolition of Structures” case: The Court applied the binding procedural safeguards issued by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No.295/2022, decided on November 13, 2024. Those directives, issued under Article 142, mandate that:

1. A 15-day show cause notice must precede any demolition.
2. A reasoned order must explain why demolition is necessary.
3. Appellate remedies must be meaningfully available.
4. The act must be video-graphed and documented.
5. All orders must be uploaded to a public portal.

In this case, none of these were followed. The Court held in its order that:

“The binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (Supra), are not aspirational guidelines, they are enforceable mandates. The Supreme Court, invoking its power under Article 142, did not request compliance. It imposed it. These directives must be treated not as peripheral suggestions but as minimum constitutional thresholds. The failure to issue a 15-day show cause notice, the absence of a reasoned order, the denial of appellate remedy, and the lack of video documentation are not merely checklist oversights. They are compound violations that nullify the very idea of lawful governance. A Tahasildar who chooses to discard these procedural obligations in favour of expediency does not act on behalf of the State, he acts against it.” (Para 21)

Article 300-A as a shield, not an ornament: The Court grounded its reasoning in the constitutional protection of property under Article 300-A, holding that:

“What is even more troubling is that the consequences of such executive haste are not merely institutional or procedural, they are deeply human. Law is not merely a tool to regulate action; it is also a shield against arbitrary force. When the State fails to pause where law requires stillness, it is not only the structure that is lost, but the trust of those whose rights depend on the process being fair and complete. This case, therefore, cannot be assessed solely through the lens of administrative law. It must also be understood as an instance where a constitutionally protected interest in property was extinguished not through judicial determination, but through executive fiat.” (Para 14)

It drew upon the Supreme Court’s rulings in:

• N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Both judgments affirmed that property rights cannot be extinguished except by due process and statutory sanction.

Justice Panigrahi added:

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

Decision of the Court

Responsibility and public trust- Tahasildar held personally liable: The Court did not stop at abstract condemnation. It fixed personal accountability upon the Tahasildar who directed the demolition, observing that:

“The office of the Tahasildar is not a mere administrative post. It is a position that carries the weight of constitutional responsibility, particularly when it comes to enforcing the law at the ground level. To act in a manner that anticipates and potentially frustrates the outcome of pending legal proceedings is a serious breach of duty. This Court cannot overlook the fact that the demolition was carried out not in compliance with the law, but in disregard of it, and such conduct undermines both the authority of the judiciary and the legitimacy of public administration.” (Para 20)

In a rare move signalling judicial intolerance for contemptuous state action, the High Court ordered:

• ₹10,00,000 in compensation, with ₹2,00,000 to be recovered from the Tahasildar;
• Departmental proceedings to be initiated against him;
• A copy of the judgment to be placed before the Chief Secretary and Revenue Secretary;
• Immediate framing and dissemination of detailed guidelines to all revenue and municipal officers, incorporating the directives of the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, W.P.(C) No. 295 of 2022.

The Court further cited Delhi Airtech Services v. State of U.P. (2011) to underscore the doctrine of public accountability:

“Public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions… Greater the power to decide, higher is the responsibility to be just and fair.” (Para 24)

In a particularly important passage, it warned that arbitrary State action destroys the public’s faith in democratic institutions. This, the Court declared, was one such case—not just of wrongful demolition but of civic injury and institutional failure:

“What this judgment makes clear is that public power carries with it a continuing duty of care. The law is not self-executing. It depends on officers who are expected to act with fairness, honesty and within the limits of their legal authority. The doctrine of public trust is not a decorative ideal. It is a binding obligation that requires those in office to treat their role as a public responsibility. When decisions are taken in haste, or authority is used without proper justification, the consequences are not merely administrative. They touch the core of democratic governance. The rule of law is sustained not only by enforcement but by trust. That trust is built slowly and can be lost quickly. When it breaks, the harm is not always visible, but it runs deep. It affects not just the immediate parties but the public’s confidence in institutions. This Court has a duty to uphold both the legal framework and the public belief that the law is a shield, not a weapon.” (Para 24)

He stressed that the use of force before judicial finality undermines not just legal rights, but public trust in the constitutional order.

Conclusion: Law must prevail over expediency

Through this judgment that will likely reverberate through cases of arbitrary demolitions across India, the Orissa High Court reminded the executive that constitutional governance is not a choice—it is an obligation.

In allowing the writ petition and disposing of the contempt petition, the High Court has made a critical intervention in defence of constitutional order, judicial supremacy, and citizen dignity.

“What is at stake here is not the legality of one demolition, but the integrity of a constitutional culture. When executive action arrogates to itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner, the harm that follows is not merely institutional, it is civic. In a democratic society governed by the rule of law, process is not an inconvenience to be bypassed when found burdensome. It is the very architecture that lends legitimacy to State action. The moment that process becomes expendable, so does the public’s faith in the neutrality of governance. This Court is duty-bound to restore that balance, for what is lost here is not only a building, but also the belief that law is a shield against arbitrariness.” (Para 17)

By grounding its decision not only in statutory and procedural norms but in the civic ethos of constitutionalism, the Court made clear that the real damage caused by “bulldozer justice” is not to buildings alone—but to public trust in the rule of law.

The complete judgment may be read below.

Related:

Encroachment or erasure? India’s demolition wave and the law

Public officials must face accountability for unlawful demolition actions, rule of law to be upheld: Supreme Court

Bulldozer Justice: SC orders Rs 25 Lakhs interim Compensation for illegal demolition by UP Govt in 2019

Bulldozer Justice: How Unlawful Demolitions are Targeting India’s Marginalised Communities

2022: A year when Bulldozer became a ‘lawful’ means of punishment

The post “Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the days leading up to the demolition, approximately 900 individuals—predominantly Muslims—were reportedly detained under similar suspicions of illegal residency. As footage of the operation began circulating on social media, images showed bulldozers advancing into the locality, razing makeshift structures and shanties identified as unauthorized dwellings.

This drive marks the city’s most extensive anti-encroachment effort since 2009, drawing both sharp criticism from civil rights groups and vocal support from local officials who framed the action as a step toward restoring law and order on public land. However, concerns have been raised over the timing, targeting, and potential communal implications of the operation, particularly given the absence of clear legal proceedings in many of the reported detentions.

#BREAKING

AMC demolishes illegal settlements near Chandola Lake #Ahmedabad

Joint CP (Crime) Sharad Singhal says majority of residents were Bangladeshis

Action comes amid ongoing drive against illegal encroachments#chandolalake pic.twitter.com/VvZaq86gXh

— Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) April 29, 2025

A persistent challenge around Chandola Lake

An Indian Express report provides context to the demolition drive, highlighting a long-standing pattern of encroachment in the Chandola Lake area. The last major clearance operation dates back to 2009, indicating that unauthorised construction and settlement have been an ongoing issue for over a decade. According to recent surveys conducted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC), there has been a noticeable resurgence of informal settlements, especially around areas like Siyasatnagar and Bengali Vaas. Authorities allege these shanties were primarily inhabited by undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants—an assertion that now forms a cornerstone of the rationale for the demolition.

Indian Express reported that, “the last demolition drive at Chandola Lake was carried out in 2009. Recently, a survey conducted by the AMC revealed that government land had been encroached upon again, and shanties were constructed around the lake. Illegal Bangladeshi immigrants lived in areas like Siyasatnagar and Bengali Vaas surrounding this lake.”

However, the sudden escalation and timing of the drive—just days after the April 22 terrorist attack in Jammu & Kashmir’s Pahalgam—raise pointed questions. Is this a targeted security measure, or has the tragic event been used as a pretext to justify mass displacement without adequate legal safeguards?

Ministerial justification: called ongoing demolition as national security response

Gujarat’s State Home Minister and BJP MLA from Surat, Harsh Sanghavi, publicly endorsed the AMC’s operation. He presented it not merely as an alleged anti-encroachment effort but as a critical national security initiative. In a widely circulated statement on social media platform X, Sanghavi cited connections to terrorism, drug cartels, prostitution rackets, and forged document syndicates—all allegedly operating within the demolished settlements.

“Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!! The Government of Gujarat has taken historic steps to prevent anti-national activities by Bangladeshi nationals. Key Aspects of Demolition Drive: – Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cells: The location where 4 terrorists were detained by Gujarat ATS has been demolished. – Drug Cartels: Encroachments linked to numerous exposed drug cartels have been demolished. – Illegal Bangladeshi Residents: Encroachments of illegal Bangladeshi residents have been detained and demolished. – Prostitution Network: A major prostitution network operating from the area has been busted. – Forged Documents Nexus: A network creating false documents has been cracked down upon. Action Taken: – Over 2,000 policemen, 15 SRP companies, and municipal staff participated in the operation. – 74 JCBs, 200 trucks, and 20 electrician teams were deployed. – Approximately 2,000 hutments/encroachments, 3 illegal resorts, and parking units were razed. – The Chandola Lake area has been reclaimed” Singhvi wrote on X

Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!!

The Government of Gujarat has taken historic steps to prevent anti-national activities by Bangladeshi nationals.

Key Aspects of Demolition Drive:

– Al-Qaeda Sleeper Cells:The location where 4 terrorists were detained by Gujarat ATS has been… pic.twitter.com/GWGM1exWab

— Harsh Sanghavi (@sanghaviharsh) April 29, 2025

Arrest and investigation of Lala Mehmood Pathan

As per reports, the demolition campaign began with a focus on a farmhouse allegedly owned by Lala Mehmood Pathan, also known as Lallu Bihari. Authorities accuse him of facilitating illegal settlements by forging rental agreements and producing fraudulent identity documents, including Aadhaar cards. An FIR has been filed against Pathan, and police claim to have uncovered over 590 forged passports allegedly linked to undocumented migrants, as Times of India reported

While these allegations are serious and merit investigation, the broad demolition campaign that followed appears to conflate individual criminal activity with the legitimacy of an entire community’s residency. Moreover, the official narrative linking these findings to national security threats has yet to be backed by court convictions or an independent probe.

Gujarat High Court denies interim relief, cites illegality of construction

On April 29, as the demolition drive intensified, the Gujarat High Court refused to grant interim relief to the residents challenging their eviction.

Justice Mauna Bhatt refused to stay the demolition drive after observing the dwellings of the petitioners were on the periphery of the water body and as per section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, such structures can be razed by the government, petitioners’ lawyer Anand Yagnik said, reported the Indian express.

The court observed that since the petitioners are “illegal encroachers,” relief from demolition cannot be granted to them. The court further added that the petitioners had constructed their homes on notified lake land without obtaining the required permissions. As a result, the case fell outside the scope of the recent Supreme Court judgment in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another vs. UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. (SLP/36440/2024) dated December 17, 2024, which mandates prior notice before eviction in cases where occupants have established long-standing residence. Citing this precedent, the High Court reiterated that prolonged unauthorised occupation does not create legal entitlements for encroachers.

Accordingly, the court ruled that no interim protection against eviction or demolition could be provided. However, at the request of the petitioners’ advocate, the case has been kept pending to allow for the filing of a rejoinder. The matter is now scheduled to be heard after the court’s vacation, leaving room for further legal arguments.

State’s argument: national security as override to due process

During the hearing, the Gujarat government argued that the demolition drive was not a routine civic action but a necessary response to “specific inputs” following the Pahalgam attack. The state claimed that the presence of suspected illegal immigrants in a sensitive area warranted urgent intervention, even if it meant suspending the usual procedural norms associated with eviction and demolition.

The High Court appeared to accept this argument, allowing the operation to proceed. However, this legal positioning—where “national security” overrides principles of natural justice—has sparked significant debate. Legal scholars and rights advocates warn that such reasoning risks setting a dangerous precedent, where vague or unverified threats can be used to sidestep constitutional protections.

Petitioner advocate’s critique: questioning identification and due process

Following the court’s order, petitioners’ advocate Anand Yagnik addressed the media, raising serious concerns about procedural violations and wrongful detentions. Advocate Anand Yagnik, in his statement to the media regarding the demolition drive near Chandola Lake, conveyed the High Court’s stance. He stated, “The High Court of Gujarat, while dealing with petition of 18 citizens, majority of them are women, have refused to grant interim relief against demolition on the ground that these petitioners are apparently on the water body. Therefore, the judgment against demolition passed by the Supreme Court will not apply to them. They do not have any permission to put up construction on government land, which is otherwise a water body. Therefore, the court is not inclined to grant any interim protection against the demolition and permission to the petitioner to stay near the lake” as ANI reported

#WATCH | Ahmedabad, Gujarat | On the demolition drive near Chandola lake, Advocate Anand Yagnik says, “The High Court of Gujarat, while dealing with petition of 18 citizens, majority of them are women, have refused to grant interim relief against demolition on the ground that… pic.twitter.com/gsNrjbPKLA

— ANI (@ANI) April 29, 2025

He also acknowledged the court’s interpretation of construction on lake land but emphasised that even if undocumented migrants were present, repatriation must be handled through the legally mandated process—via the Foreigners’ Tribunal.

Yagnik said that, “There may be Bangladeshi nationals among the residents of the (Chandola Lake) area, one does not deny that. But, these immigrants should be sent back as per the process of law, with orders of the Foreigners’ Tribunal with dignity and respect… But by the way, in the last four days, the state government of Gujarat has picked up 1,200-1,500 people by tagging them as Bangladeshis, and also released 90% of them as they were found to be Indian nationals and not Bangladeshis… Now, in a demolition drive the authorities are also bulldozing the homes of those, who have not been found to be Bangladeshi nationals” as the Indian Express reported.

Yagnik revealed a deeply troubling detail that of the estimated 1,200 to 1,500 people detained by the Gujarat police in the days leading up to the demolition, nearly 90% were subsequently released after being identified as Indian citizens. If accurate, this implies a staggering failure in the initial identification process—suggesting that hundreds of individuals may have been arbitrarily arrested, detained, and had their homes demolished under erroneous assumptions of foreign origin.

“Sensitive Input” trumps natural justice in urgent hearing

In its affidavit to the High Court, the Gujarat government maintained that the principles of natural justice should not obstruct actions taken to protect national security in the Chandola Lake area. During an urgent hearing convened on Tuesday afternoon for the petition filed by approximately 23 residents of Siasat Nagar, the High Court ultimately sided with the state. The court accepted the argument that the demolition was not a “regular drive against encroachment” but a targeted operation driven by “specific input” concerning illegal immigrants, thus denying the residents any interim relief.

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

The post Gujarat HC refuses stay demolition, AMC launches massive demolition in Muslim-majority Chandola Lake area appeared first on SabrangIndia.

What made the act even more egregious was its violation of a binding Supreme Court ruling in Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, which clearly held, and reaffirmed the already granted fundamental rights of the citizens, that state authorities cannot demolish homes merely because the residents are accused or convicted of crimes. In its affidavit, filed through Executive Engineer (Slums) Kamlesh Chavan, the NMC astonishingly claimed it was unaware of the Supreme Court’s directions — a justification that prompted not only judicial rebuke but also public outrage. This case lays bare the persistent dangers of “bulldozer justice”, the misuse of urban planning laws to punish the marginalised, and the systemic failure of state machinery to uphold fundamental rights, especially the right to shelter.

What follows is a breakdown of the sequence of events, the High Court’s intervention, and a critical analysis of the NMC’s defence, including its shocking reliance on bureaucratic ignorance in the face of constitutional obligations.

Background: Demolition in the shadow of violence

On March 21, 2025, Jehrunissa Shamim Khan, mother of Fahim Khan — the accused in a recent incident of communal violence in Nagpur — received a demolition notice from the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC). The notice, issued under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, sought to raze her two-storey home in Sanjay Bagh Colony, Yashodhara Nagar.

On March 24, despite the matter being mentioned before the Bombay High Court earlier that day, NMC authorities carried out the demolition amidst heavy police presence and drone surveillance. The action was described by the civic body’s counsel as a fait accompli, suggesting that the operation had already been concluded by the time legal redress could be effectively sought.

A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Vrushali Joshi, however, took serious note of the NMC’s conduct and stayed further demolition action. It observed that the municipal authorities had prima facie acted in violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling which had clearly held that the State cannot demolish a person’s house merely because they are accused or convicted in a crime. The bench also noted that another accused, Abdul Hafiz, had received a similar notice and his house too was partially demolished. The High Court’s order stayed all further action under the March 21 notices.

The Court made clear that it would evaluate the legality of both the notice and the demolition upon submission of affidavits from the Municipal Commissioner and Executive Engineer.

Detailed report may be read here.

The NMC’s Defence: Unawareness and apology

In compliance with the Court’s direction, the NMC filed an affidavit before the High Court on April 15, 2025, through Kamlesh Chavan, Executive Engineer (Slums). The affidavit opened with an unconditional apology for acting contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment.

As per a report in the LiveLaw, Chavan stated that “At the outset, I am tendering an unconditional apology to this Court to have made this Court to observe that the authorities have acted against the petitioner’s unauthorised construction in contravention to the judgment of the Supreme Court.”

Additionally, the affidavit claimed that the NMC and its officers were unaware of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment as no circulars or guidelines had been issued by the Maharashtra government or the Town Planning Department to that effect. The deponent maintained that no such communication was issued under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act or by any state department. As such, the demolition was carried out under the provisions of the existing statute, not in conscious disobedience of apex court orders.

The affidavit added that on March 21, police authorities had sought details of the properties of those accused in the violence and asked NMC to act against any unauthorised structures. Upon examining documents, the civic body allegedly found that Khan and others could not furnish sanctioned building plans, leading to the issuance of a demolition notice with a one-day deadline.

The NMC insisted that there was no “malafide intention” in the action taken and that the steps were purely statutory.

‘Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse’: A hollow defence

The NMC’s claim of ignorance is not only legally untenable — it is deeply troubling. The principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse (ignorantia juris non excusat) is foundational to any legal system. This rule applies even more strictly to state actors and public authorities, whose job it is to uphold and implement the law in letter and spirit.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 Demolition of Structures case was not an obscure judgment. It was delivered in response to widespread concern over the use of demolition as extrajudicial punishment, particularly against accused persons from minority communities. The Court had also directed all Chief Secretaries of states and Union Territories to issue necessary circulars to local authorities, ensuring dissemination and compliance.

That the NMC never received or acted upon such instructions reflects a systemic failure of governance and communication. But it does not absolve individual officers of responsibility. Civic bodies are expected to stay updated on legal developments, especially those concerning fundamental rights. Pleading ignorance in the face of an explicit and binding Supreme Court ruling reflects negligence at best, and wilful disregard at worst.

Loss of shelter, erosion of dignity

Beyond the legal infractions lies a far more serious human rights issue — the loss of the right to shelter. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty, which courts have interpreted to include the right to live with dignity and the right to shelter. The demolition of Jehrunissa Khan’s home was not just an administrative act; it was an act of dispossession — a violent stripping away of security and dignity from a citizen.

To issue a demolition notice with a mere 24-hour response window, without independent verification or due process, is a mockery of natural justice. That the demolition was carried out even as the matter was mentioned before a constitutional court, makes it all the more egregious.

This is not a case of poor documentation or regulatory lapse. It is a stark example of punitive governance, where bulldozers are deployed not to clear encroachments, but to send a message — one that criminalises not just individuals but entire families and communities. Such state behaviour creates a chilling effect, particularly for vulnerable groups, and sets a dangerous precedent where legal procedure is replaced with brute force.

Conclusion: Accountability, not apologies

The NMC’s apology, while noted, is wholly inadequate. A mere expression of regret cannot compensate for the unlawful demolition of a home, especially when that act violated Supreme Court directives and was executed in defiance of the High Court’s consideration. Accountability must go beyond symbolic contrition. The officers responsible for authorising and executing the demolition — in disregard of judicial pronouncements — must face disciplinary proceedings, if not contempt action. The Maharashtra government, too, must be held to account for its failure to issue the mandatory circulars despite the Supreme Court’s clear directions in 2014. This lapse enabled civic authorities to act in a legal vacuum, undermining the rule of law and exposing vulnerable citizens to irreversible harm.

This case should not be treated as an isolated aberration. It is a symptom of a larger, dangerous trend — where executive bodies bypass due process and enforce punishment outside the boundaries of law. Such practices threaten to hollow out constitutional protections, erode public trust in institutions, and institutionalise “bulldozer justice” as a state response to dissent and disorder. If courts do not intervene with clarity and firmness, these actions will set precedents that normalise illegality.

The right to shelter is not a favour bestowed by the state. It is a fundamental human right recognised under Article 21 of the Constitution. When that right is violated by state agencies acting with impunity, restitution must include not only accountability, but meaningful and adequate compensation. The destruction of a home cannot be undone — but justice demands that the state provide reparations for the physical, emotional, and psychological toll inflicted on affected citizens. Anything less would amount to tacit approval of executive lawlessness.

The path forward must not merely seek legal correctness — it must reassert the constitutional promise that no person will be deprived of life or liberty except by procedure established by law. That promise was shattered in this case. It now falls upon the judiciary to restore it — not just in courtrooms, but tangibly, on the ground.

Related:

Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions, awards Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each six victims for violation of due process

Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

The post ‘We Didn’t Know the Law’: NMC apologises after illegally demolishing Jehrunissa Khan’s home in Nagpur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Shockingly, the bench noted that despite Khan challenging the said notice and mentioning the same before it on Monday morning (March 24), the authorities pulled down the house amid heavy security and drone surveillance in the entire area, on Monday afternoon. Advocate for the NMC argued that the demolition was already a fait accompli!

“We therefore, mentioned the matter again at 2:30 PM and the bench heard us. We apprised the bench of the facts of the case and how the NMC hurriedly demolished my client’s house. The bench was not at all impressed with the NMC. In fact, the bench questioned the authorities about their conduct and even pulled them for their high-handedness,” stated advocate Ashwin Ingole, who represented Khan in the HC.

Following brief arguments, the bench prima facie found the action in gross violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures, (the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures) wherein a bench led by Justice Bhushan Gavai had held that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

“But for the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, further factual matrix appears to be identical and prima facie we are satisfied that the respondent-Authorities are conducting demolition in contravention of the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.295/2022 In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures,” the judges said in the order.

The bench noted that another accused Abdul Hafiz, too received a similar notice and his house was also partially demolished by the authorities. It therefore, stayed the operations of the demolition notice.

“That being so, the entire action pursuant to the notice dated March 21, 2025 issued to the petitioners shall remain stayed until further orders,” the bench ordered.

Besides the bench stated that, “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record.”

On the other hand, advocate Jemini Kasat representing the NMC informed the judges that the demolition action is already over. The bench recorded the statement. “However, we will be dealing with the legality of the notice and the action taken pursuant to such notice against the petitioner once an affidavit of the Municipal Commissioner and the Executive Engineer is placed on record,” the judges said while adjourning the hearing till April 15.

Shri A. R. Ingole, Advocate for petitioner. Shri J. B. Kasat, Advocate with Shri Amit Prasad, Advocate for respondents.

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement

The post ‘High-Handed, violation of the SC orders’: Bombay HC pulls up Nagpur Civic Body for demolishing homes of accused in communal violence appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amid heavy police security, civic authorities demolished a two-storey house of #Nagpurviolence key accused Fahim Khan over unauthorised construction, officials said.https://t.co/KUgWpxbvV8 pic.twitter.com/PxUxA0DgB8

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) March 24, 2025

#WATCH | Maharashtra: House of Nagpur violence accused Faheem Khan being demolished in Nagpur. Police personnel are present at the spot. pic.twitter.com/RKzAFCokED

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

Demolition of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, also an accused in the Nagpur violence case, was also reported on the same day.

#WATCH | Nagpur, Maharashtra: NMC’s (Nagpur Municipal Corporation) anti-encroachment squad demolishes the illegal construction of the house of Yusuf Sheikh, accused in the Nagpur violence case.

Visuals from Johripura, Mahal. pic.twitter.com/K1f9rbsWjL

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

It is essential to note that the Municipal authorities have claimed the demolition was carried out under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, citing “unauthorised construction” as the reason. However, the selective and arbitrary nature of such demolitions raises serious questions about due process and the rule of law. Khan, who remains in judicial custody, is among more than 100 individuals—mostly Muslims—arrested in connection with the violence. Local residents have accused the police of bias and indiscriminate arrests, further deepening fears of state-sponsored communal targeting. The suggestions of there being biased enquiry into this violence can also viewed from the fact that the 11 members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, who had allegedly burnt the effigy of Aurangzeb as well as a chadar from a local Dargah to demand the removal of the tomb of Aurangzeb, had been given bail hours after surrendering to the police.

In regards to the demolition of Fahim Khan’s house, Nagpur Municipal Corporation’s deputy engineer, Sunil Gajbhiye, asserted that the demolition was conducted after an “investigation” and a 24-hour notice issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. However, the absurdity of such rapid enforcement—especially when encroachments by politically influential individuals often remain untouched for decades—suggests that this was less about urban planning and more about political retribution.

#WATCH | Nagpur: “…We had the order to investigate into a complaint. We did a proper investigation. As per Sec 53(1) of the MRTP Act (Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966) a notice was issued for 24 hours. As soon as the duration completed, this action was… https://t.co/9eEE1GJsAm pic.twitter.com/6edPdYfegh

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

While Indian law does not permit property demolitions as a punitive measure, the BJP has increasingly used this tactic as an extrajudicial weapon against Muslims, particularly in cases of communal violence. Despite a Supreme Court stay on such measures, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis brazenly justified the “bulldozer action,” declaring on March 22 that it would be used “wherever required.” He further stated that damage caused during the violence would be recovered from the accused, failing which their property would be seized and auctioned. The CM also alarmingly suggested that those accused of inciting violence through social media would be treated as co-accused, raising concerns about potential misuse of state power to silence dissent.

The government’s rhetoric has been disturbingly violent, with Maharashtra minister Pratap Sarnaik openly advocating for extrajudicial violence, stating, “The bulldozer should be run over him, not his house, if anyone is involved in such violent activities.” His remarks, reported by the Deccan Herald, reflect the growing normalisation of state brutality and the erosion of legal safeguards.

The pattern of bulldozer politics, seen recently in Sambhal and other BJP-governed regions, is not just a violation of legal norms but a deliberate strategy to intimidate and collectively punish Muslims. That such actions continue despite the Supreme Court’s directives underscores the growing impunity of state actors who use communal violence as a pretext to enforce their majoritarian agenda.

With at least 105 individuals arrested and multiple FIRs registered, the situation in Nagpur reveals a deeply disturbing reality: rather than upholding the principles of justice and accountability, the state is resorting to bulldozers and arbitrary punishment, sending a chilling message about whose rights matter in today’s India.

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

It is also crucial to provide here that the communal violence that erupted in Nagpur on March 17 has now resulted in the death of a 38-year-old man, Irfan Ansari, who succumbed to his injuries at Indira Gandhi Government Medical College and Hospital on March 23. A welder by profession, Ansari had left home to catch a train to Itarsi in Madhya Pradesh but was caught in the chaos near Central Avenue. He was brutally attacked by a mob, sustaining severe head injuries. His family was informed only after the police took him to the hospital, where he briefly regained consciousness before succumbing to his wounds.

The Nagpur police have arrested a total of 105 individuals in connection with the violence, including 14 people, among them 10 minors, who were detained earlier this week. According to Deputy Commissioner of Police Lohit Matani, 13 cases have been registered, and multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) have been filed. Assistant Public Prosecutor Megha Burange confirmed that 19 accused individuals had been remanded in custody until March 24.

The violence occurred just hours after Hindutva groups held a demonstration demanding the removal of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb’s tomb in Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar. In response, authorities imposed prohibitory orders across 11 police station jurisdictions. While restrictions were gradually eased in some areas by March 21, the curfew was fully lifted on March 24, with police continuing to patrol sensitive localities.

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

On Sunday, March 23, Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Nirupam had made unverified claims about the involvement of individuals linked to Bangladesh in the recent violence in Nagpur. At a press conference, Nirupam alleged that the unrest was “pre-meditated” and part of a larger conspiracy. He also accused one of the arrested individuals of using social media to fund “Mujahideen activities,” without providing any substantial evidence.

His statements took a political turn as he attacked the rival Shiv Sena (UBT), insinuating that its leaders were aligning with extremist elements. “Is the Sena (UBT) aligning itself with the Mujahideen? Are the Thackerays and (Sanjay) Raut supporting them?” he asked, attempting to stoke communal and political divisions. Furthering his rhetoric, he claimed that Uddhav Thackeray’s residence, Matoshree, would soon display a photo of Aurangzeb alongside those of Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj—an inflammatory remark aimed at discrediting the opposition.

The political exploitation of the violence has been evident in the statements of BJP allies like Sanjay Nirupam, who, instead of addressing the root causes of communal tensions, have chosen to push unverified claims of a “foreign hand” in the violence. His remarks, along with Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ endorsement of punitive bulldozer actions, signal a dangerous trend of targeting minorities under the pretext of law enforcement.

The use of such rhetoric not only undermines due process but also diverts attention from the failure of law enforcement to prevent the violence in the first place. The events in Nagpur mirror a broader pattern of state-sponsored impunity, where accountability is selectively applied, and majoritarian politics dictate justice.

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

The Maharashtra Police have booked six individuals, including Minorities Democratic Party leader Fahim Khan, on charges of sedition and spreading misinformation on social media. The accused are among 50 others named across four FIRs.

Authorities have charged primary suspect Fahim Khan with sedition, among other offences. Police records indicate that Khan allegedly coordinated a demonstration outside a Nagpur police station on March 17. His criminal history includes charges of electricity theft and participation in protests during 2023-2024.

According to the FIR, Khan led a group of 50 to 60 individuals who illegally assembled outside Ganeshpeth police station on Monday to submit a memorandum opposing an earlier Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) protest. Officials stated that Khan and eight others later went to the Bhaldarpura area, where they found 500 to 600 people gathered near Shivaji Maharaj Chowk, which led to his arrest.’

Besides the sedition case, a separate FIR has been filed against individuals accused of editing videos of the protest against Aurangzeb, allegedly “glorifying violence” and circulating them online. Another case pertains to video clips allegedly made to incite communal clashes, while a third concerns social media posts that further fuelled tensions.

Deputy Commissioner of Police (Cyber Cell) Lohit Matani stated that misinformation was initially spread on social media, triggering the violence, followed by more videos that glorified it. “He [Fahim Khan] edited and circulated the video of the protest against Aurangzeb due to which the riots spread,” ANI quoted Matani as saying. “He also glorified violent videos.”

More than 120 people, including 11 minors, have been taken into custody, according to Commissioner Singal. Additionally, on March 19, Commissioner Singal had confirmed that investigations were ongoing to identify additional assailants and determine the involvement of individuals mentioned in the FIR regarding Khan’s suspected role in orchestrating the violence.

It is also being reported that the law enforcement has established 18 dedicated teams to pursue and capture those responsible for the unrest in Nagpur. According to a senior official, the police have identified 200 suspects and are working to determine the identities of 1,000 more individuals recorded on CCTV during the violence. Authorities have lodged five First Information Reports (FIRs) at Ganeshpeth and Kotwali police stations, naming 200 accused persons. Officials confirmed that they are reviewing CCTV recordings to identify additional participants.

As per a report of the Hindustan Times, Nagpur Commissioner of Police Dr Ravinder Kumar Singal briefed journalists about the special teams, which include personnel from Ganeshpeth, Kotwali, and Tehsil police stations, along with the Crime Branch. These teams are working in conjunction with the cyber cell to support the identification of suspects.

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

In a related development, the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the night of March 19 had installed tin sheets around Aurangzeb’s tomb, following orders from the Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar district administration.

“The green net covering two sides of the tomb was in bad shape, and the structure was visible to those visiting the nearby Khwaja Syed Zainuddin Chishti grave,” an ASI official told PTI. “So we have installed tin sheets.”

The demand for the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb has been intensifying in recent weeks, with Hindutva groups, including the VHP and Bajrang Dal, claiming that the structure is a “symbol of pain and slavery.”

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

On March 20, Maharashtra Congress chief Harshvardhan Sapkal had informed the media about forming a team of party leaders to visit the riot-affected areas of Nagpur. The delegation includes senior leaders such as Manikrao Thakare, Shomati Thakur, Hussain Dalwai, and Sajid Pathan. Nagpur district Congress chief Thakare will serve as the convenor, while AICC Secretary Praful Gudade Patil has been appointed as the coordinator.

Meanwhile, Maulana Shahabuddin Razvi, a cleric from the Barelvi sect, had written to Union Home Minister Amit Shah, seeking a ban on the film Chhava, alleging that it incited communal tensions and was directly responsible for the Nagpur violence.

Sequence of events and aftermath

The violence in Nagpur erupted hours after Hindutva groups held a protest in the city demanding the removal of Aurangzeb’s tomb. The clashes broke out at 7:30 pm in central Nagpur’s Chitnis Park, where stones were thrown at the police amid rumours that a cloth bearing the Islamic declaration of faith, known as the Kalma, had been burned during a Hindutva-led agitation.

Unidentified Bajrang Dal office-bearers told The Indian Express that its members had only burned an effigy of Aurangzeb during the protest. However, another clash erupted in Hansapuri, close to Chitnis Park, between 10:30 pm and 11:30 pm. The violence soon spread to Kotwali and Ganeshpeth areas, prompting the police to fire tear gas shells and resort to lathi charges to disperse the mobs. Prohibitory orders barring public gatherings were imposed within the limits of 11 police stations.

A preliminary survey found that over 60 vehicles were damaged in the violence, including 20 two-wheelers and 40 four-wheelers. Two cranes were also set on fire, with a construction company reporting a loss of Rs 70 lakh. Authorities announced that individuals whose vehicles were fully damaged would receive Rs 50,000, while those with partially damaged vehicles would be compensated with Rs 10,000. The said compensation is said to be given to the victims on March 25.

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

The Nagpur violence and the state’s response underscore a disturbing trend of bulldozer justice, arbitrary arrests, and communalised governance. The punitive demolition of Fahim Khan’s house—while the state turns a blind eye to Hindutva organisations inciting violence—reveals a stark bias in law enforcement. Statements from ministers and ruling party leaders openly endorsing extrajudicial action further normalise the idea that the law can be bypassed when dealing with minorities.

This particular incident of demolition of the house of an accused belonging to a minority religious community is not the first incident that has taken place in Maharashtra after the BJP has formed the state government. On February 23, (Sunday) during the highly anticipated India-Pakistan Champions Trophy match 2025, a local passer-by, owing allegiance to the Vishwa Hindu Parisha (VHP), accused a 15-year-old boy from a Muslim scrap metal trading family of shouting “anti-India” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match. This event took place reportedly around 9:30 pm on February 23. Varadkar, while the complainant one Sachin Varadkar, was on his bike riding to a friend’s house and claimed to have overheard the boy and a group of others shouting what he described as “anti-India” slogans. Later that evening, when passing by the area again, Sachin Varadkar reportedly saw the boy cycling and chose to confront him. What initially seemed like a minor disagreement quickly escalated, with Varadkar allegedly taking the matter to the authorities.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals. Just like in Nagpur, state sponsored illegal action in the name of demotions had taken place Muslim accused with following the due procedure of law. (Detailed story on the Malvan demolition may be read here.)

The broader context of the Nagpur violence reflects an alarming state strategy: use communal tensions as a pretext for aggressive law enforcement against one community while shielding provocateurs from accountability. This pattern not only erodes faith in the justice system but also contributes to deepening social divisions in Maharashtra and beyond.

Related:

How communal unrest was stoked, misinformation & rumours ignited unrest in Nagpur

Shielded by Power? How Prashant Koratkar’s remains un-arrested, even after making derogatory comments against Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj

Colours of Discord: How Holi is being turned into a battleground for hate and exclusion

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hindutva push for ‘Jhatka’ meat is a Brahminical & anti-Muslim agenda

WB LoP Suvendu Adhikari’s open call for Muslim-free assembly from the Assembly must be met with action, not silence

The post Demolition of Fahim Khan’s house: A political message disguised as law enforcement appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The situation intensified three days later when the boy was apprehended, his parents arrested, and their scrap shop demolished following complaints from locals.

महाराष्ट्र के मालवण में India Vs Pakistan क्रिकेट मैच के बाद कुछ लोगों पर पाकिस्तान समर्थित नारेबाज़ी के आरोप लगे, जिसके बाद दुकान पर बुलडोज़र कार्रवाई देखने को मिली। pic.twitter.com/zEsCQhYi7L

— Ashraf Hussain (@AshrafFem) February 25, 2025

Reports on the incident first surfaced in The Indian Express on Tuesday. Reportedly, the boy had been apprehended immediately after, first sent to an observation home and then released to relatives. He had been initially produced before the district Child Welfare Committee and sent to a remand home. The parents, who were produced before a local Sindhudurg court, were first sent to magistrate’s custody until adequate legal aid was obtained after which they were granted bail. Bail formalities however took some time so reportedly they were released only on Wednesday. Meanwhile their home and scrap shop had been razed to the ground, reportedly not by any official bulldozers but by vigilantes belonging to controversial organisations.

On November 13, 2024, the Supreme Court bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had delivered a landmark judgment addressing the issue of illegal demolitions, a phenomenon popularised as “bulldozer justice”. The judgment, which is widely regarded as a significant in protecting fundamental rights, critiques the executive’s use of property demolition as a substitute for criminal prosecution. The judgment asserted that the executive cannot bypass judicial processes to punish an accused by demolishing property, as this oversteps executive powers and undermines the rule of law. The Court described these arbitrary demolitions as “high-handed” and deemed demolitions without the authorities following the basic principles of natural justice and acting without due process to be a “chilling sight”.

Sindhudurg SP Saurabh Kumar Agrawal told The Times of India, “The anti-national slogans led to our lodging an FIR.”

The three were booked under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony), 197 (imputations/assertions prejudicial to national integration, and 3 (5) (acts with common intention) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. For offences under Sections 196 ((any person who promotes enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and acts likely to prevent their maintenance) and 197 (acts likely to prejudice national integration) and 3(5) (when two or more persons have committed a criminal act in furtherance of a common purpose (under the BNS, 2023. The maximum punishment is 3 years in jail or fine or both.

Hence, based on the complaint by a VHP worker, the police acted and detained the family: a scrap metal trader, his wife, and their teenage son.  The minor was sent to a juvenile home, while his parents were initially remanded to 14 days of judicial custody. However, they were subsequently granted bail.

The Bulldozer’s fury: demolition controversy

Other reports indicated that, on February 24, it was none less than the Malvan Municipal Council, under the leadership of Chief Officer Santosh Jirge, that took a drastic step by demolishing of the family’s scrap shop claiming on the back of Sunday’s complaint that the constructions were “unauthorised” and obstructing traffic “The concerned scrap metal business had done unauthorized construction here. Moreover, this scrap metal business was also obstructing traffic in the city,” stated Jirge to the BBC Marathi.

This action, however, appeared to be influenced by Shiv Sena MLA Nilesh Rane (brother of BJP MLA and right-wing leader Nitesh Rane), who publicly condemned the family’s alleged actions. Rane shared visuals of the demolition on X, stating, “In Malvan, a Muslim migrant scrap dealer raised anti-India slogans after the India-Pakistan match yesterday. As an action, we will definitely expel this outsider from the district, but before that, we immediately destroyed his scrap business.”

“Shiv Sena’s Nilesh Rane shared the visuals of the bulldozer action against the shop on X and stated, ‘In Malvan, a Muslim migrant scrap dealer raised anti-India slogans after the India-Pakistan match yesterday. As an action, we will definitely expel this outsider from the district, but before that, we immediately destroyed his scrap business. We thank the Malvan Municipal Council administration and the police administration for taking prompt action,'” as seen on Rane’s X account.

मालवणात एक मुसलमान परप्रांतीय भंगार व्यवसायिक यानी काल भारत पाकिस्तान मॅच नंतर भारत विरोधी घोषणा दिल्या.
कारवाई म्हणून आम्ही या परप्रांतीय हरामखोराला जिल्ह्यातून हाकलून देणारच पण त्या अगोदर तात्काळ त्याचा भंगार व्यवसाय उध्वस्त करून टाकला.
मालवण नगर परिषद प्रशासन आणि पोलीस… pic.twitter.com/LK1yDPuLa6

— Nilesh N Rane (@meNeeleshNRane) February 24, 2025

Parents of boy get bail but can’t leave state without court’s permission

In the remand application before the court, police stated that the complaint was filed by Malvan resident Sachin Varadkar, a 35-year-old labourer and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) worker. Varadkar told The Indian Express that he had overheard 15-year-old boy shouting “anti-national” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match on February 23. Following this complaint, the boy’s parents were arrested.

However, on February 25, a local court in Malvan, granted them bail. The court rejected the police’s request for custody, placing conditions on their release, including restrictions on leaving the state without court permission, cooperation with the investigation, and weekly attendance at the local police station until the chargesheet is filed. Despite being granted bail, the couple was not released until late Wednesday as the bail formalities were still being processed, as reported The Indian Express

The absence of evidence: a case built on flimsy claims?

As per BBC Marathi report, a crucial aspect of this incident is the lack of concrete evidence supporting the allegations. Sindhudurg Superintendent of Police Saurabh Agarwal confirmed, “There is no video available regarding the anti-national slogans.” The police action was based solely on a complaint, casting doubt on the reliability of the accusations.

“Sindhudurg Superintendent of Police Saurabh Agarwal, while reacting to the matter, said, ‘An investigation is underway in this case. There is no video available regarding the anti-national slogans. We have taken this action based on a complaint from a person. We are investigating the matter,'” he stated.

Legal expert Aseem Sarode criticized the demolition, deeming it illegal and arbitrary. “Taking such action without giving any notice even if the residence is unauthorized is illegal,” said Sarode to BBC Marathi. He also raised concerns about the rise of “illegal power centres” and the dangers of “self-policing.”

While speaking to BBC Marathi, Sarode said that“Taking such action without giving any notice even if the residence is unauthorized is illegal. The second thing is why the municipality did not notice this earlier? All the procedures of giving notice and then understanding their side are written in the law. Taking such unilateral action just because some leader tells you to is very wrong. This increases the risk of an illegal power centre starting,” according to BBC Marathi.

Political fallout and community tensions

The incident triggered strong political reactions. Vinayak Raut, a leader from the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena, condemned the alleged anti-national slogans and questioned the role of the Maharashtra Home Department. “It is condemnable that Pakistani people come to a small town like Malvan and do business there,” said Raut.

“While interacting with the media, he said, ‘It is condemnable that Pakistani people come to a small town like Malvan and do business there. The pests who live in Malvan and raise slogans of ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ should be crushed. Who supported these Pakistani people there? Who encouraged them to do business? If Pakistani people are coming to a small town like Malvan, what is the Maharashtra Home Department doing?’” as reported BBC Marathi.

Locals organised a motorcycle rally, demanding strict action against the family. Reports circulated on social media, claiming that lawyers in Malvan would boycott the family’s case. However, Satish Kumar Dhamapurkar, president of the Malvan Taluka Bar Association, refuted these claims. “This is incorrect information. We have not taken any decision to boycott or not to take legal papers,” Dhamapurkar clarified.

The family’s residency: questions and investigations

Superintendent Agarwal confirmed that the family originally hails from Uttar Pradesh and has been residing in Sindhudurg for 20-25 years. They possess Aadhaar cards, voting cards, and PAN cards issued in Sindhudurg. “The persons against whom the case has been registered are originally from Uttar Pradesh. However, they have been residing in Sindhudurg for the last 20-25 years,” confirmed Agarwal.

“The persons against whom the case has been registered are originally from Uttar Pradesh. However, they have been residing in Sindhudurg for the last 20-25 years. Their Aadhaar card, voting card and PAN card are also from Sindhudurg. Were there any irregularities in obtaining all these documents? We are investigating this,” Agarwal stated.

Nilesh Rane, however, questioned the legitimacy of their residency and documents. “They are three brothers, where did they come from, how did they come? How did they come to Malvan 10-12 years ago, no answer has been found yet,” Rane stated in a video.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Nilesh Rane FC (@nileshranesamarthak)

A town divided: unanswered questions and lingering tensions

The Malvan incident has left a community grappling with unanswered questions and lingering tensions. The absence of concrete evidence, the swift punitive action, and the involvement of non-governmental entities have raised serious concerns about the erosion of due process and the rule of law.

“No evidence surfaced on anti-India slogan and Malvan never had a history of communal tension,” reports indicated. “Doubt of whether any such slogan was raised. This is not confirmed however. Malvan never had a history of communal tension: According to a video shared by the Hindutva Watch, claims that the shop of the family raised in the presence of local right-wing leaders, they also raised the slogans against the Muslim family.

However, the Malvan incident presents a complex situation marked by rapid action and numerous unanswered questions. The swift arrest of the family, the demolition of their shop, and the lack of concrete evidence raise concerns about due process and the influence of political entities.

Was the demolition legally justified, especially without prior notice?

How did a single accusation lead to such drastic measures, and what role did political figures play in these actions?

The absence of video evidence for the alleged slogans leaves the foundation of the case in doubt. Were the family’s residency documents properly vetted, or were they used as a pretext for further action? The community’s response, including rallies and social media claims, underscores existing tensions.

Related:

Special Report: ‘They came like monkeys; they came like Nazis.’ Ambedkari Bastis in Parbhani face the traumas of police brutality

Parbhani police under scrutiny: Fact-finding report exposes allegations of brutality, illegality, and constitutional violations

Minister’s casteist remarks and tribal violence spark fury

The post A 15-year-old boy “accused”, family shop and home demolished in direct contravention of SC orders? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Details of the present pleas before the Bench:

The judgment emerged from a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, wherein various individuals sought relief against the summary demolition of their properties. The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications, moved by the victims of these targeted petitions, along with separate pleas filed by Jamiat and CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat, 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.

One of the applications was filed by the Rashid Khan, a 60-years old auto-rickshaw driver from Udaipur. In Udaipur the District Administration demolished the house of Rashid as one of his tenant’s boy, allegedly stabbed his classmate. An order was issued by the district forest authority and Municipal Corporation on Friday, August 16, 2024 and gave the family time till Tuesday i.e. August 20 to vacate their home, but the authorities demolished the house a little later on August 17.

The other plea was filed by Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh who 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.

Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a detailed analysis of several foundational principles and addresses each issue comprehensively:

1. Upholding the rule of law: The Supreme Court underscored that the rule of law is a fundamental tenet of the constitutional framework and must guide all state actions. Referencing A.V. Dicey, the Court emphasised that the rule of law requires that every individual is subject to the same laws and that state actions should always align with legal principles. Any actions taken outside of these laws are arbitrary and undermine democracy. In the demolition cases, the Court highlighted that state authorities appeared to have bypassed legal frameworks, breaching the rule of law.

“There can be no doubt with the principle that, no one is above the law of the land; that everybody is equal before the law.” (Para 15)

2. Principle of separation of powers: The Court emphasised the importance of the separation of powers, stating that while the executive has broad administrative authority, punitive actions with serious consequences fall under the judiciary’s exclusive purview. The judgment argued that punitive measures without judicial oversight infringe upon judicial authority and weaken the justice system. By acting as both accuser and judge, the executive undermined legal safeguards designed to protect individuals from arbitrary punishment.

“If the executive in an arbitrary manner demolishes the houses of citizens only on the ground that they are accused of a crime, then it acts contrary to the principles of ‘rule of law’. If the executive acts as a judge and inflicts penalty of demolition on a citizen on the ground that he is an accused, it violates the principle of ‘separation of powers’. We are of the view that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions.” (Para 53)

3. Presumption of innocence: The Court reiterated that the presumption of innocence is central to criminal justice and must not be disregarded for expediency. Citing landmark cases, the Court underscored that imposing punishment prior to judicial determination contradicts principles of fairness and justice. It acknowledged that while demolitions might deter unlawful behaviour, they cannot substitute for due process and judicial oversight.

“The principle, that “an accused is not guilty unless proven so in a court of law” is foundational to any legal system. It reflects the presumption of innocence, which means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law. This principle ensures that individuals are not unfairly punished or stigmatized based solely on accusations or suspicions.” (Para 63)

4. Right to shelter: The Court held that the right to shelter is fundamental and integral to human dignity, protected under Article 21. The judgment noted that arbitrary demolition of one’s home severely infringes on the right to life. Drawing from international human rights conventions, the Court argued that shelter provides physical and psychological security essential for a stable life, emphasising that arbitrary actions against shelter are unconstitutional.

“The right to shelter is one of the facets of Article 21. Depriving such innocent people of their right to life by removing shelter from their heads, in our considered view, would be wholly unconstitutional.” (Para 78)

“Punishing such persons who have no connection with the crime by demolishing the house where they live in or properties owned by them is nothing but an anarchy and would amount to a violation of the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.” (Para 76)

5. Public accountability and trust: Referring to the doctrine of public trust, the Court stated that state officials are entrusted by the public and must conduct actions transparently, with accountability for abuses of power. It found that demolitions without legal grounds breached public trust, requiring accountability measures. Officials responsible for such demolitions were deemed to have acted in bad faith, warranting punitive consequences.

“This Court held that the well-established precepts of public trust and public accountability are fully applicable to the functions which emerge from the public servants or even the persons holding public office. It has been held that the doctrine of “full faith and credit” applies to the acts done by the officers in the hierarchy of the State. They have to faithfully discharge their duties to elongate public purpose.” (Para 47)

6. Potential abuse of power in demolitions: The Supreme Court critical assessed the arbitrary demolition of properties belonging to accused individuals, describing such actions as a potential “abuse of power” that contradicts constitutional principles. Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan observed that selective demolition, where certain structures were demolished while others remained untouched, suggested state malice.

“…when a particular structure is chosen all of a sudden for demolition and the rest of the similarly situated structures in the same vicinity are not even being touched, mala fide may loom large. In such cases, where the authorities indulge into arbitrary pick and choose of the structures and it is established that soon before initiation of such an action an occupant of the structure was found to be involved in a criminal case, a presumption could be drawn that the real motive for such demolition proceedings was not the illegal structure but an action of penalizing the accused without even trying him before the court of law. No doubt, such a presumption could be rebuttable. The authorities will have to satisfy the court that it did not intend to penalize a person accused by demolishing the structure.” (Para 82) 

7. Limits of executive authority: The judgment asserted that the executive cannot bypass judicial processes to punish an accused by demolishing property, as this oversteps executive powers and undermines the rule of law. The Court described these arbitrary demolitions as “high-handed” and deemed demolitions without the authorities following the basic principles of natural justice and acting without due process to be a “chilling sight”.

“The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where “might was right”. In our constitution, which rests on the foundation of ‘the rule of law’, such high-handed and arbitrary actions have no place. Such excesses at the hands of the executive will have to be dealt with the heavy hand of the law. Our constitutional ethos and values would not permit any such abuse of power and such misadventures cannot be tolerated by the court of law.” (Para 72)

8. Due process for the accused and convicted: The Court underscored that due process is essential not only for those accused of crimes but also for individuals who have been convicted. It highlighted that, even in cases of conviction, property cannot be demolished without following the procedures established by law. The Court further stressed that any executive action assuming guilt and enacting punishment, like demolition, without a fair trial, infringes on the principle of separation of powers.

“As we have already said, such an action also cannot be done in respect of a person who is convicted of an offence. Even in the case of such a person the property/properties cannot be demolished without following the due process as prescribed by law. 74. Such an action by the executive would be wholly arbitrary and would amount to an abuse of process of law. The executive in such a case would be guilty of taking the law in his hand and giving a go-bye to the principle of the rule of law.” (Para 73 and 74)

9. Rights of the accused: The judgment stated that individuals accused of crimes are entitled to fundamental constitutional protections, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to dignity, and protection from cruel or inhumane treatment. The Court affirmed that both accused and convicted individuals have specific rights enshrined in constitutional and criminal law, which the state must respect. It further stressed that arbitrary or excessive actions against accused persons or convicts are impermissible without adhering to lawful procedures. The Court called for institutional accountability in cases where an accused person’s rights are compromised due to state overreach, reinforcing the foundational legal principle of presumed innocence until proven guilty.

“It is to be noted that even in the cases consisting of imposition of a death sentence, it is always a discretion available 74 to the courts as to whether to award such an extreme punishment or not. There is even an institutional safeguard in the cases of such punishment to the effect that the decision of the trial court inflicting death penalty cannot be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. Even in the cases of convicts for the commission of most extreme and heinous offences, the punishment cannot be imposed without following the mandatory requirements under the statute. In that light, can it be said that a person who is only accused of committing some crime or even convicted can be inflicted the punishment of demolition of his property/properties? The answer is an emphatic ‘No’.” (Para 75)

10. Accountability for public officials in arbitrary demolitions: The Court emphasised that public officials involved in carrying out such demolitions must be held accountable for their actions. It stressed that those who act beyond the law in such an arbitrary and forceful manner should be made responsible for their actions, underscoring the importance of restitution in such cases.

“We are of the view that in such matters the public officials, who take the law in their hands, should be made accountable for such high-handed actions. 54. For the executive to act in a transparent manner so as to avoid the vice of arbitrariness, we are of the view that certain binding directives need to be formulated. This will ensure that public officials do not act in a high-handed, arbitrary, and discriminatory manner. Further, if they indulge in such acts, accountability must be fastened upon them.” (Para 53 and 54)

11. Reinforcing Constitutional ethos: In summary, the Court highlighted that executive authorities are not permitted to bypass judicial processes or assume judicial functions by deciding guilt and administering punishment. The Court emphasised that determining guilt is the exclusive domain of the judiciary. This judgment reinforces India’s commitment to the rule of law, ensuring that executive actions, regardless of the seriousness of the accusations, adhere to constitutional limits and uphold procedural justice.

“It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence as recognized in our country that a person is presumed to be innocent till he is held guilty. In our view, if demolition of a house is permitted wherein number of persons of a family or a few families reside only on the ground that one person residing in such a house is either an accused or convicted in the crime, it will amount to inflicting a collective punishment on the entire family or the families residing in such structure. In our considered view, our constitutional scheme and the criminal jurisprudence would never permit the same.” (Para 88)

Power of Article 142

To prevent arbitrary demolitions, the Court exercised its authority under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution, establishing guidelines to curb “bulldozer actions” as punitive measures against those accused or convicted of crimes. It mandated that individuals facing demolition should be granted time to contest the orders, ensuring they have a fair chance to challenge the demolition in an appropriate forum. The Court also advised that authorities should delay action, especially when vulnerable groups—such as women, children, and elderly persons—are required to vacate, suggesting that a brief postponement would not compromise the state’s interests.

“In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to 87 be given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.” (Para 90)

The Court specified that these protections do not apply to unauthorised structures in public spaces, including roads, footpaths, railway tracks, or areas near water bodies, nor to demolitions ordered by a court. This exception aims to balance individual rights with the need to prevent unauthorised occupation of public spaces.

Directions issued by the Court

The court issued comprehensive guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions and to reinforce procedural fairness by establishing the following:

1. Time to challenge demolition orders: After a demolition order is issued, the affected individuals must be allowed sufficient time to contest the order before the appropriate forum.
2. Time for voluntary vacating: Even for those who do not intend to challenge the demolition, adequate time should be provided to vacate the premises.
3. Mandatory show-cause notice: No demolition should occur without a prior show-cause notice, served either within the time specified by local municipal laws or within 15 days of service, whichever is later.
4. Notice delivery and documentation: Notices must be sent by registered mail to the property owner and posted visibly on the property. A digital notification should also be sent to the office of the Collector or District Magistrate, which must acknowledge receipt to ensure transparency.
5. Designation of nodal officer: District Magistrates should designate a nodal officer and assign an official email for demolition communications within one month.
6. Detailed notice content: The notice should outline the nature of the unauthorised construction, specific violations, demolition grounds, personal hearing dates, and the authority handling the matter.
7. Digital portal requirement: Municipal authorities must set up a digital portal within three months where details about notices, responses, show-cause orders, and final decisions are accessible.
8. Opportunity for personal hearing: The designated authority must allow a personal hearing for the affected party, recording the hearing minutes and providing a reasoned final order. This order should address the party’s arguments, the authority’s findings, and whether partial or full demolition is justified.
9. Judicial review: If an appeal mechanism exists, the demolition order must be on hold for 15 days from receipt to allow the owner a chance to appeal. The order should also be posted on the digital portal.
10. Opportunity for voluntary removal: The property owner should be given the chance to remove unauthorised construction voluntarily within the 15-day period. If they do not comply, and no stay is granted by an appellate authority, demolition may proceed.
11. Limit to non-compoundable structures: Only parts of the structure that are non-compoundable under local laws may be demolished.
12. Inspection and videographic documentation: Before demolition, the authority must prepare an inspection report, videograph the process, and preserve records. The final report, including a list of personnel involved, must be submitted to the Municipal Commissioner and uploaded to the digital portal.
13. Contempt and accountability: Any breach of these guidelines may lead to contempt proceedings and prosecution. If demolitions violate Court orders, responsible officers may be liable for restoring the property at personal cost, including payment of damages.
14. Dissemination of judgment: The judgment was ordered to be distributed to Chief Secretaries of all States and UTs and Registrar Generals of High Courts. States must circulate guidance on the ruling to relevant authorities.

Petitioners’ contentions

The petitions collectively contended that state authorities were engaging in a disturbing pattern of demolishing homes and businesses of individuals accused in criminal cases without following due process of law. This trend, referred to colloquially as “bulldozer justice,” involved allegations that these demolitions were targeted actions against certain communities and political dissenters, carried out in the absence of formal judicial determinations of guilt or proper legal protocols.

The petitioners pointed out specific instances in states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, where several demolitions had taken place following allegations of involvement in criminal activities or political protests. In such cases, state machinery reportedly moved swiftly to demolish the homes of accused individuals, often with little to no prior notice, minimal opportunity for appeals, and a lack of legal proceedings establishing their guilt. These actions, according to the petitioners, not only violated the fundamental rights to shelter, equality, and due process but also reflected a breakdown of the rule of law in favour of executive overreach.

The court’s task was therefore to examine whether these demolition actions were legally defensible or whether they constituted a misuse of state power in breach of constitutional protections. The case brought into focus several interwoven principles: the rule of law, separation of powers, and the fundamental rights of individuals, including the right to property and shelter.

Central issues highlighted in the case

The judgment identifies and dissects several key issues that had been brought up by the petitioners:

1. Violation of due process of law: The petitions emphasised that the demolitions were conducted without procedural fairness, including notice and the opportunity for a hearing, which are foundational to the principle of natural justice. This issue questioned whether the state could deprive individuals of property without any formal adjudication or adherence to legal procedures.
2. Presumption of innocence: The petitions highlighted a troubling presumption of guilt that appeared inherent in the state’s actions, with demolitions proceeding on the basis of allegations or accusations being raised by the state police against the targeted individuals alone. This aspect raised concerns over the use of administrative powers to punish individuals in lieu of judicially sanctioned penalties, undermining the accused’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
3. Arbitrariness and erosion of rule of law: The judgment had to consider whether these demolitions represented a breach of the rule of law. The principle of rule of law, foundational to a democratic society, requires that all state actions be predictable, transparent, and consistent. Arbitrary demolitions carried out without proper legal authorisation or transparent procedures brought into question the very fabric of rule-based governance.
4. Separation of powers: The case addressed the overstepping of executive powers into areas traditionally reserved for the judiciary. Punitive actions, such as passing convictions and sentencing the demolition of property, typically fall under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, ensuring a fair trial and proportional punishment. The court’s role was to determine if the executive had bypassed the judiciary’s role by unilaterally deciding to punish individuals outside of the formal legal system.
5. Accountability and public trust: The principle of accountability emerged as a critical concern, examining whether state officials could be held accountable for demolitions conducted in violation of legal procedures. The doctrine of public trust mandates that public officials exercise power as custodians of the people’s trust, acting transparently and responsibly.

Arguments raised by the parties

Submissions made by the petitioners: The petitioners had argued that the demolitions were in clear violation of constitutional rights and represented an abuse of state power. They asserted the following:

• Lack of adherence to due process: The demolitions were carried out without prior notice or an opportunity for the accused to present their case. This disregard for procedural safeguards contravened the constitutional mandate of Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. By bypassing established procedures, the state not only deprived the accused of their property but also of their dignity and sense of security.
• Punitive in nature: The petitioners contended that the demolitions were punitive measures disguised as administrative actions. They argued that demolishing homes of those accused of crimes, without any judicial pronouncement of guilt, amounted to a pre-emptive punishment that violated the principle of presumption of innocence. This, they argued, created a dangerous precedent where the executive assumed the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
• Infringement of fundamental rights: The right to shelter, enshrined as a fundamental right, was argued to be inalienable and non-derogable. The petitioners highlighted that the Constitution protects individuals from state actions that threaten basic human needs, such as a home. They pointed to the jurisprudence that recognises shelter as integral to human dignity and a necessary condition for the exercise of other rights.
• Discriminatory and arbitrary actions: The petitioners argued that the demolitions were disproportionately aimed at certain communities and individuals, indicating a selective and discriminatory application of administrative power. This arbitrary use of state machinery not only undermined the rule of law but also created a perception of bias and prejudice in state actions.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate C.U. Singh, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, advocate Prashant Bhushan, advocate Mohd. Nizammudin Pasha, advocate Fauzia Shakil and advocate Rashmi Singh had appeared for the petitioners/applicants.

Submissions made by the respondents:

The state governments and the Union of India, represented by the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the demolitions on several grounds, such as:

• Lawfulness of demolitions: The respondents argued that all demolitions were conducted in accordance with municipal laws and regulations that allow for the removal of unauthorised constructions. They contended that these actions were administrative in nature and were necessary for enforcing urban planning and public order. Demolitions, they argued, were within the executive’s purview and did not require judicial sanction in cases of unauthorised structures.
• Protection of public order: The respondents maintained that the demolitions were legitimate actions to maintain public order and enforce laws regarding land use and property management. They argued that individuals accused of crimes often built or occupied unauthorised structures, and removing these structures was part of a broader strategy to uphold lawful land use.
• Statutory authority and exceptions: The respondents cited specific provisions under municipal laws that permitted immediate demolitions without notice in cases of unauthorised encroachments on public land, roads, or water bodies. They argued that under such statutes, the state had a statutory mandate to act swiftly in the removal of unlawful structures to prevent public nuisances and ensure public safety.

Reaffirming the rule of law: A landmark judgment safeguarding fundamental rights, human rights and judicial oversight

This judgment firmly establishes that no citizen in India can be deprived of their property or shelter without lawful process and judicial oversight, underscoring the commitment to constitutional principles that protect individual rights against overreach. The ruling reinforces democratic safeguards by placing stringent checks on executive powers, mandating that actions affecting private property and shelter must follow clear procedural protections. In doing so, it highlights the judiciary’s role as a defender of individual rights, ensuring that the state cannot exercise arbitrary authority that undermines citizens’ trust in the rule of law. This foundational stance is a crucial reminder that state power, while necessary, must operate within the bounds of fairness and legal accountability.

At the heart of the judgment is a reaffirmation of the rule of law, emphasising that democratic governance must adhere to principles of justice and non-selective enforcement of laws. It reinforces that no arm of the state, including the executive, can bypass established legal processes to impose punishment, a critical safeguard against abuse of power. By reiterating that punitive actions, such as demolitions, cannot be decided or enacted by the executive without judicial endorsement, the judgment underlines the importance of a system that values transparency, fairness, and predictability in state actions. This ruling is timely in a period of increasing concern over unchecked executive power and serves to uphold the idea that the judiciary is the sole authority on matters of guilt and punishment.

The judgment also extends robust protections to fundamental rights, especially those of vulnerable communities who are often at risk of unjust state actions. In recognising the right to shelter as an extension of the right to life and dignity, it underscores the societal importance of a stable home, affirming that housing is more than mere property—it is security, identity, and foundation. The ruling’s procedural safeguards and accountability measures are particularly impactful for marginalised communities, who are disproportionately affected by evictions and demolitions. These protections are crucial in a landscape where informal housing is common and where rapid state actions can push vulnerable populations into severe socio-economic hardship. The judgment, therefore, reinforces the judiciary’s role as a champion of inclusive protection, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of socio-economic status, are shielded from arbitrary actions.

The judgment’s emphasis on accountability and transparency is another key takeaway, introducing procedural requirements that mandate prior notice, digital records, and opportunities for affected individuals to respond before any state-led demolition. This push for transparency, with directives for a public digital portal to document each demolition, is a step toward increased public oversight, which in turn builds citizens’ confidence in government processes. The emphasis on personal accountability, where officials can face consequences for violations, serves as a significant deterrent to potential abuses of power. By setting these standards, the judgment promotes responsible governance that aligns with democratic principles, ensuring that public officials act as guardians of, rather than threats to, citizens’ rights.

Ultimately, this ruling is a powerful legacy for Indian governance and the judiciary’s role as a custodian of democracy and civil liberties. It sends a message both domestically and internationally that India’s democratic system, rooted in respect for human rights and the rule of law, stands firm against authoritarian tendencies. As a landmark decision, it will likely be a touchstone for future cases involving executive overreach, setting a precedent that demands due process, accountability, and judicial oversight as essential elements of governance. This judgment is not just a procedural mandate; it is a robust assertion of democratic values, a testament to the judiciary’s responsibility in upholding the Constitution, and a commitment to safeguarding citizens from the misuse of state power.

The complete judgment may be read below.

(Details of the previous orders can be read here, here and here.)

Related:

Demolitions: SC orders status quo on Sonapur demolitions, issues notice to Assam Government Uttarakhand, UP, Gujarat also ignore Sept 17 order

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court to hear urgent pleas against state-sanctioned bulldozer demolitions in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan

The post Supreme Court reinforces due process in demolition cases, lays down stringent guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The three-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, expressed strong dissatisfaction with the conduct of the authorities, condemning the Uttar Pradesh government’s actions as “high-handed”, according to Live Law.

During the hearing, the court found that no notice was served to the victim and due process was not followed.

Ref. article: Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition can be read here

Regarding the failure to serve notice to the victims, CJI Chandrachud further remarked, “This is completely high-handed. Where is the due process? The affidavit shows no notice was issued; instead, you merely informed people at the site through loudspeakers,” as reported by Live Law.

However, in response to the state’s claim that the petitioner had encroached on public land, CJI Chandrachud stressed that, “You say he encroached on 3.7 square meters. We accept that, though we’re not granting him a certificate for it. But how can you start demolishing people’s houses like that? This is lawlessness—walking into someone’s home and demolishing it without notice.”

Public announcement used, not formal notice or due process

Justice Pardiwala also strongly criticized the authorities for relying solely on a public announcement and a drumbeat to notify residents, rather than following proper legal procedures. He remarked that, “You can’t just with the beat of a drum tell people to vacate houses and demolish them. There has to be proper notice.”

NHRC report taken into consideration by court

The bench relied on a report from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), which found that the highest encroachment in the case was just 3.70 square meters. The NHRC concluded that such a minimal encroachment did not justify demolishing the entire house. Based on its findings, the NHRC recommended granting interim compensation to the petitioner for the wrongful demolition. Additionally, the NHRC called for the registration of an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint and for the initiation of departmental and punitive action against the responsible officers.

Additionally, the Court observed that the authorities failed to conduct any inquiry to properly demarcate the encroachments. Furthermore, there was no evidence to show that the land had been legally acquired prior to the demolitions.

SC directed UP Govt to pay 25 lakhs as a punitive compensation to the petitioner

The Court directed the State to pay an interim punitive compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the petitioner, emphasizing that this amount would not hinder the petitioner from pursuing additional legal action for further compensation.

Additionally, the Court instructed the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh to conduct an investigation into all officers and contractors involved in the illegal demolitions, and to initiate appropriate disciplinary action. The Court also clarified that the State could pursue criminal action against those responsible. These directions must be implemented within one month.

Furthermore, the judgment outlined the procedural steps that state authorities must follow before carrying out any demolition for road-widening projects. According to Bar and Bench, the Court also ordered all States to adhere to the following while carrying out widening of roads:

While carrying road widening, States must ascertain:

– Existing width of road;

– If encroachment is found, notice has to be issued to remove the encroachment;

– If objection is raised, then a decision on objection should be rendered by way of a speaking order in compliance with natural justice principles;

If rejected, then reasonable time should be given to (the encroacher) to remove encroachment.

A copy of the ruling was ordered to be circulated to all States and Union Territories to ensure compliance.

Case Title: In Re Manoj Tibrewal Akash [W.P.(C) No. 1294/2020]

Related:

Acquiring land without due procedure would be outside the authority of law, Supreme Court lays down 7 Constitutional tests for land acquisition

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Supreme Court warns against ‘bulldozing the rule of law,’ affirms that legal process, not allegations, must govern punitive actions

The post Bulldozer Justice: you can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight: SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In response to Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 909 of 2024 filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), a division bench of Justices AR Masoodi and Subhash Vidyarthi also noted that the notices issued to occupants for proposed demolition did not indicate the number of houses situated on kilometre 38 of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road, that have been authorised for construction.

Though the court did not explicitly stay the demolition in its order and observed that the court have no reason to believe that order passed by the Supreme Court on September 17, 2024 (halting nationwide demolition) shall not be carried out by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the letter and spirit.

The bench observed that “Evidently, unauthorized structures in any public place such as roads, streets, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law are the exceptions to the general rule. In the present case, we find that on kilometer-38, of Kundasar-Mahasi-Nanpara-Maharajganj, District Road some notices have come to be issued to some persons for raising unauthorized constructions”

According to Live Law, the division bench, however, took strong exception an association’s filing of the PIL, saying that such petitions would have far-reaching consequences.

Background of the case

On October 13, 2024 (Sunday), a violent incident unfolded in Maharajganj, Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, during a Durga Puja immersion procession. Tensions escalated when loud music was played near a mosque, leading to gunfire that tragically claimed the life of 22-year-old Ram Gopal Mishra, a local resident participating in the procession. This incident ignited widespread violence and communal unrest in the area. In the aftermath, mobs retaliated by vandalising and setting fire to numerous properties, including homes, shops, hospitals, and vehicles. Disturbingly, a video emerged showing Ram Gopal in a heated moment, removing a green flag from a rooftop and replacing it with a saffron flag, moments before he was shot. Authorities quickly responded, arresting five suspects linked to Mishra’s death following an encounter with Uttar Pradesh Police, during which two of the suspects sustained gunshot wounds. The suspects, identified as Mohammad Faheen, Mohammad Sarfaraz, Abdul Hameed, Mohammad Taleem (alias Sabloo), and Mohammad Afzal, were reportedly attempting to flee to Nepal. By October 18, the situation escalated further, with 87 individuals arrested in connection to the riots, and around 1,000 people booked after at least 11 FIRs were registered.

Following this, the families of the accused, along with 23 others, received notices from the Public Works Department (PWD) allowing them just three days to respond before proposed demolition actions against their properties. The Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) challenged these notices, arguing they were served illegally and in violation of the Supreme Court’s earlier directive on September 17.

Simultaneously, a petition was also moved before the Supreme Court against the demolition issued by the Uttar Pradesh authorities Bahraich violence.

Unclear whether responded filed any reply or not: HC

While granting the time extension over the impugned demolition notices, the bench also commented on the uncertainty on whether the aggrieved individuals have filed any replies or sought recourse through other forums. Then bench observed that “The notices are issued to the persons concerned for participation in the proceedings through a reply to be submitted by them within three days. It is unclear in the pleadings as to whether the persons aggrieved have filed any reply or have approached any forum or not. In any case, notices issued against a limited number of persons who are to participate in the proceedings cannot be viewed to be a matter of general public importance, which may be taken cognizance of in a public interest litigation unless the vulnerability of an aggrieved person is such that he is established to be the one who is unable to approach the court for availing the remedy available under law”

High court granted 15 days’ time to affected families to file reply

The order is a significant intervention that emphasises the importance of direct involvement from those facing the notices in the proceedings. The bench stressed that those who have been served notices for demolition of the illegal structures on Kundasar-Mahsi-Nanapara-Maharajganj Road in Bahraich, have been directed to file their replies within 15 days and also ordered the State Authorities to consider the said replies and pass ‘speaking and reasoned’ orders on these replies..

“We expect the persons faced with the notices to participate with the proceedings in the meantime. We further provide that in case they file their reply to the notice within a period of 15 days from today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order which shall be communicated to the parties aggrieved” the bench directed.

The matter is listed for October 23, 2024 for next hearing.

The order of Allahabad High Court dated October 20, 2024 may be read here:

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

Report: 294 houses demolished on a daily basis in 2023 in India

The post Bahraich Violence: Allahabad High Court grants 15 days to affected persons to respond on demolition notices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The demolished shrine belonged to Haji Mangroli Shah, was located to Hazrat Maai Puri Maszid in Veraval. The demolition drive began at early morning on Saturday, September 28, in Veraval’s Prabhas Patan town near the Somnath temple, around 1,200 police personnel help in clearing 102 acres of government land worth ₹32 crore from alleged encroachments. Authorities detained over 150 people who were protesting against the demolitions, including members of the dargah committee.

Reacting to the bulldozer action, Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) founder and Supreme Court advocate, Anas Tanwir questioned the Gir-Somnath authority’s arbitrary actions and the manner in which the demolition drive was carried out, highlighting concerns about the disregard for due process and direction of the Supreme Court.

He added that “A 1200-year-old dargah, a protected monument, was demolished by the Gujarat Government in Veraval today—brazenly defying a Supreme Court order. This act signals utter disregard for the judiciary’s authority. If this isn’t undermining the majesty of the court, what is?

A 1200-year-old dargah, a protected monument, was demolished by the Gujarat Government in Veraval today—brazenly defying a Supreme Court order. This act signals utter disregard for the judiciary’s authority. If this isn’t undermining the majesty of the court, what is? pic.twitter.com/38tiX0rdVN

— Anas Tanwir (@Vakeel_Sb) September 28, 2024

As per reports, authorities deployed a staggering array of heavy machinery, including 36 bulldozers, 30 JCBs, and 50 tractors, described as the most significant demolition drive in Gir Somnath’s history. Authorities have also deployed a force of 1,200 police personnel to ensure the operation’s smooth execution, which is overseen by high-ranking officials, including District Collector DD Jadeja and police superintendents. The area has been cordoned off to maintain public safety, and access is restricted to authorized personnel only. The district collector Jadeja said that the administration had given a notice of more than 15 days to remove the encroachments but there was no response, which led to Saturday’s demolition drive.

“This is one of the largest anti-encroachment drives in the state in recent years where nine religious sites including mosques and dargahs were demolished as they were built illegally,” said District Collector Jadeja. Reported Hindustan Times

Following the incident, the Muslim Community Coordination Committee (MCC)-Gujarat swiftly condemned the illegal bulldozer action against the Dargah, penning a letter to Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel demanding justice against the illegal bulldozer actions. The committee alleged that several ancient shrines in Prabhas Patan including Haji Mangrol Dargah, Shah Silar Dargah, Garib Shah Dargah and Jafar Muzaffar Dargah were subjected to demolition on Saturday.

However, what is shocking is that this demolition defied the Supreme Court’s recent order on September 17, issued just 11 days prior, halting all demolitions nationwide unless prior permission was obtained. Exceptions were only made by the court for public road encroachments and specific areas.

Related:

Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution

Supreme Court rebukes “Bulldozer Justice,” plans to issue nationwide guidelines to prevent arbitrary demolitions

As Delhi votes this week for the Lok Sabha 2024 election, those affected by demolitions and evictions lack trust in the parties

The post SC Order Ignored: Gujarat govt bulldozed 1200-years-old Dargah in Veraval appeared first on SabrangIndia.