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.

While hearing the contempt petition, a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had issued the notice, which is returnable within three weeks, and also ordered both parties to maintain the status quo during this period. Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, argued that the state had committed an “egregious violation” of the Court’s order. In response, Justice Gavai noted that no demolitions had taken place, to which Ahmadi replied that demolition notices had been issued, and such actions would likely continue unless stopped. The Court then ordered the parties to maintain the current situation until the case is resolved.

The contempt petition, filed on September 28, alleged that Assam authorities were in breach of the Court’s interim order from September 17, which had halted all demolition activities across the country without the Court’s express permission. It is pertinent to note that this order, however, did not apply to demolitions involving encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or water bodies.

On September 17, a Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had issued a significant interim order halting demolition actions nationwide while hearing a series of petitions against bulldozer-driven demolitions in various states. The bench highlighted the need to uphold constitutional principles, with Justice Viswanathan stressing that even one instance of an illegal demolition would undermine the rule of law, which should always prevail over arbitrary executive actions. (Details may be read here)

More about the petition filed by the Assam residents:

By filing the contempt petition, the petitioners had alleged that authorities in Assam have violated the Supreme Court’s order by marking their homes for demolition without issuing any prior notice, claiming they were encroaching on the land. The petition, which seeks contempt proceedings against the officials involved for demolishing their houses.

The petition references a previous order from the Gauhati High Court, dated September 20, 2024, in which the Advocate General of Assam gave an undertaking that no action would be taken against the petitioners until their representations were addressed. However, the authorities allegedly proceeded with the demolitions, further violating court orders.

According to LiveLaw, the petition stated that “The right to housing and shelter is a fundamental right as repeatedly affirmed by this Hon’ble Court and is integral to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. This fundamental right cannot be infringed without following due process of law. Thus, the demolition of properties by the authorities in Assam as a punitive measure for alleged crimes also violates this right.”

The petitioners, residents of Kachutoli Pathar and neighbouring areas in the Sonapur mouza of Kamrup Metro district, assert that their occupation was legally valid through power of attorney agreements with the original landholders (pattadars). While they do not claim ownership of the land, they argue their residence is lawful under these agreements. The petition challenges the administration’s classification of them as “illegal occupiers” or “encroachers” on tribal lands, pointing out that some of the pattadars who permitted them to stay are part of the protected tribal class.

The petitioners clarify that they have never claimed ownership or altered the land’s nature, arguing that the land has been in their families’ possession since the 1920s—long before the establishment of tribal belts in 1950 under a government notification. They also emphasise that they have essential services like electricity, ration cards, Aadhaar cards, and voter ID cards, all based on their residency. They maintain they have not violated the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, as they have not changed the nature of the land.

Further, the petition highlights that portions of the tribal belt are inhabited by non-tribal people, while other areas where tribals are a minority are still included in the tribal belt. The petitioners stress that for several decades they have lived peacefully alongside tribals and other communities, without causing any disputes or conflicts. Evicting them, they argue, would not only deprive them of their homes and livelihoods but also disrupt the social harmony of the region.

The petition also claims that the authorities marked the petitioners’ homes for demolition with red stickers without issuing any prior notice, in clear violation of the law. Specifically, they cite Section 165(3) of Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, which requires that an eviction notice be given, allowing one month for occupants to vacate before any demolition occurs.

The petition argues that the demolition violates the principles of natural justice, especially the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which ensures the right to a fair hearing. The petitioners contend they were not given any opportunity to defend themselves, and the absence of notice deprived them of their homes and livelihoods, violating their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21. The petition was filed through Advocate Adeel Ahmed.

Other incidents of demolitions despite the Supreme Court’s stay:

On September 19, 2024, in Laksar, Uttarakhand, local authorities demolished a mosque following a complaint from the right-wing group Hindu Jagran Manch. The demolition was carried out by officials from the Tehsildar’s office, Nagar Palika, and the police, despite protests from the mosque’s builders. Laksar Tehsildar Pratap Singh Chauhan explained that the mosque was illegally constructed on vacant public land. Hindu Jagran Manch had previously protested the construction and filed a complaint with the sub-district magistrate. As per reports, Chauhan added that authorities had instructed the builders to cease construction, but they continued regardless. A video circulating in the media showed a Muslim man lamenting that officials refused to consider their documentation.

Hindutva groups in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have recently launched campaigns against mosques, triggering protests and demands for demolitions. In Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand, an alleged mistake in an RTI response, which initially showed no land records for a mosque, sparked protests. As per reports, further investigation allegedly revealed that the mosque’s land is legally registered under the Sunni Waqf, and local authorities are working to resolve the issue.

A mosque in #Laksar, #Uttarakhand, was demolished by local authorities following a complaint from the right-wing group #HinduJagranManch. The demolition, carried out on Thursday by officials from the Tehsildar’s office, Nagar Palika, and police, faced opposition from the mosque’s… pic.twitter.com/1QftYPvSwh

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 20, 2024

Also on September 19, 2024, in Uttar Pradesh’s Shahjahanpur district, a historic religious site in the village of Sahora was targeted by alleged Hindutva mob. The group demolished a shrine and replaced it with a Shivling. The police have since registered an FIR against those involved, and a heavy police force has been deployed to manage tensions in the area.

In #UttarPradesh‘s #Shahjahanpur, a historic religious site in the village of #Sahora was targeted by a #Hindutva mob on Wednesday. The group demolished an existing shrine and replaced it with a Shivling.

The police have registered an FIR against those who did this. Police force… pic.twitter.com/HnqguNVLOE

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 19, 2024

On September 21, 2024, a protest erupted in Dharavi, Maharashtra, when Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) staff attempted to demolish an allegedly illegal portion of the Subhania Mosque. The protest, which involved an estimated crowd of 5,000, escalated into a clash with BMC officials, resulting in property damage, including the breaking of a BMC vehicle’s glass. Notably, police responded by arresting three individuals accused of inciting the riot. The arrested individuals have been charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Section 132, which is non-bailable and relates to obstructing government employees. Police also suggested that the protest was fuelled by inflammatory social media posts circulated the night before. Local residents attempted to de-escalate the situation by urging protesters to clear the road for traffic. The BMC has since given the mosque committee eight days to address the alleged illegal construction.

On September 24, 2024, in Madhya Pradesh’s Neemuch district, authorities demolished the home of a 70-year-old widow, Barkat Bai. As per media reports, the land had been granted to her under the Mukhyamantri Ashray Yojana in 2008. According to her family, the demolition occurred while Barkat Bai was away seeking treatment for an illness. Her son-in-law, Mohammad Rais, questioned how land legally provided by the government could be deemed illegal. Locals submitted a written complaint to the district magistrate, alleging that municipal officials had been pressuring her to leave the land for some time. They also claimed that her approved housing funds had been stalled, preventing her from building a proper home. Reportedly, in an effort to force her out, officials had dug a drainage trench outside her house, restricting her movement., while the authorities have stated that the land was cleared for the construction of a fire office.

Going Against Sept 17 order of #SupremeCourtOfIndia to Pauses ‘Bulldozer Actions’, #MPGovt razed the home of 70 year old widow, Barkat Bai on Sept 24 declaring it as an “encroachment.”

In #MadhyaPradesh‘s #Neemuch, a patch of land which was given to Barkat Bai under Mukhyamantri… pic.twitter.com/4hE98ybNXD

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 25, 2024

In the early hours of September 28, 2024, authorities in Gujarat’s Gir Somnath district demolished a centuries-old dargah, mosque, and graveyard as part of an ongoing anti-encroachment drive. The demolished structures included the tomb of Haji Mangroli Shah, located near Hazrat Maai Puri Masjid. Despite a Supreme Court order halting demolitions without prior approval, the authorities allegedly proceeded with the demolitions, claiming the drive was aimed at removing illegal constructions near the Somnath Temple to facilitate the Somnath Development Project. Around 150 protestors, including members of the dargah committee, were detained by police. According to local authorities, the drive cleared approximately 15 hectares of government land valued at Rs 60 crore.

This is from #GirSomnath, #Gujarat.

On September 28, In apparent defiance of the #SupremeCourt’s demolition order, authorities razed a 500-year-old graveyard, mosque, and dargah.

Massive protests were held against the demolitions, which are supposedly meant to pave way for… pic.twitter.com/Iyr1ZvWbX6

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 29, 2024

On the same day, in Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, a mob demolished the wall of an under-construction mosque while objecting to its construction. The mosque, being built on land donated by a Muslim man as part of a resolution between two brothers, was attacked while Muslim community members were away for work. It is being alleged that religious books were torn, and a house was attacked, with a woman being thrashed by the mob. The mosque was planned because there was no mosque in the village of Kela Dandi.

In #UttarPradesh‘s #Bareilly, wall of under-construction mosque was demolished by mob while raising objection to the construction of the mosque.

The mosque was attacked and religious books were torn when #Muslims were out for work.

Mob also barged into a house, thrashed a… pic.twitter.com/RMt6OsaPr1

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 29, 2024

Persistent violations: illegal demolitions continue despite Supreme Court orders

The issue of illegal demolitions in India has become a significant and persistent concern, despite the Supreme Court’s recent orders halting such actions without prior approval. As seen in multiple states, local authorities continue to bypass the law by labelling homes, religious structures, and communities as “illegal encroachments,” thereby justifying demolition drives. These actions often occur without due process, violating citizens’ fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood as guaranteed by the Constitution. The widespread disregard for legal procedures, despite the Supreme Court’s stay, underscores a deeper systemic issue where executive powers are misused to marginalise vulnerable communities under the guise of legality. This ongoing trend not only undermines the rule of law but also threatens the social fabric of the affected areas, with entire communities facing displacement, communal tensions, and loss of homes.

Related:

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

“Bulldozer barbarism”: Demolition drive in Surat after stones thrown at Ganesh pandal

As Khyber Pass demolitions get preponed to Sept 15, residents decry decision

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

The post Demolitions: SC orders status quo on Sonapur demolitions, issues notice to Assam Government Uttarakhand, UP, Gujarat also ignore Sept 17 order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is to be highlighted that the bench, while passing this direction, has also clarified that this order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.

The direction of the Court made a blanket ban over the bulldozer demolition across the country, till October 1, as the matter is listed for next hearing. Previously, the Court expressed that guidelines on ‘Pan-India Basis’ would be laid down, so that the concerns regarding demolition of properties of accused persons are taken care of. The Court also sought all parties’ suggestions to frame appropriate guidelines on its September 2 order.

Background

The Supreme Court is hearing a batch of pleas filed against the ‘bulldozer actions’ happening across the country in various states, especially in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. The pleas are expressing their primary concern with the allegedly arbitrary bulldozing of houses and properties of the accused as a punitive punishment.

On April 20, 2022, the Islamic Cleric Body, Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind was filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court relating to demolition drive by North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) in April, 2022 in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri area and alleged that the NDMC had provided insufficient notice to those whose properties were razed.

As on April 16, 2022 a Shobha Yatra to celebrate Hanuman Jayanti was organised in Jahangirpuri. Rioting took place after stones were allegedly pelted at the event. Over 20 people were arrested in connection with the violence, with five accused booked under the National Security Act, 1980. On April 19, the Chief of Delhi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) wing wrote to the NDMC pointing to the rioters’ illegally constructed homes and establishments. The next day, the NDMC, led by Mayor and BJP politician Raja Iqbal Singh, launched a drive to raze encroachments in the area, demolishing several structures in Jahangirpuri, many of which were owned by Muslims.

On April 20, 2022, the bench consisting of Chief Justice of India, NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli stayed the Jahangirpuri demolition drive and directed authorities to maintain status quo.

On April 21, 2022, CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat and individuals whose properties had been razed, filed a petition in the SC challenging the NDMC’s continued demolition of properties in violation of the Court’s Order dated April 20, 2022.

On April 21, 2022, taking cognizance of the petition in Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022], a bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai stayed the bulldozer actions and demolition drive in Jahangirpuri and directed authorities to not take any further action until further order of the court.

The demolition drive was stayed by the Supreme Court but the petitioners raised their concern before the bench against the alleged illegal ‘bulldozer’ action taken by the various states across the country as a form of punitive punishment against the accused person’s properties. 

Details of the present pleas before the bench:

The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications along with 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. Senior Advocate CU Singh mentioned one of the applications earlier in the day, requesting it be heard alongside the ongoing Brinda Karat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors, [W.P. (C) 294 of 2022] which challenges the 2022 demolition drive in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri.

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.

A detailed report can be read here

Can’t demolish house just because somebody is accused: SC

Notably, On September 2, 2024, the Division bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan strongly criticized the practice of  ‘bulldozer actions’ against the properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. The bench proposed the intention to lay down pan-India guideline with regards to the demolitions.

Justice Gavai while taking note on the petitioner’s concern with raising ‘bulldozer action’ taken by the various state government against accused’s property, questioned that “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he’s convict.” he also clarified that the Court won’t protect unauthorized constructions, he remarked that some guidelines are necessary.

Justice Vishwanathan also emphasized on the need for specific guidelines in relation to the demolition actions. He observed that “why can’t some guidelines be laid down? It should be put across states. This needs to be streamlined.”  He further added that “a father may have recalcitrant son, but if the house is demolished on this ground, this is not the way to go about it”,

Justice Gavai in furtherance of the observation made by Justice Vishwanathan, added that even if a construction is unauthorized, the demolition can be carried out with due procedure, reported Live Law.

During the hearing on September 2, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh submitted that the State’s position is clear from its affidavit which stated that merely because a person is alleged to be part of an offence, it can’t be ground for demolition. “No immovable property can be demolished because owner/occupant is involved in offense,” the SG read from the affidavit.

SG Mehta also addressed the bench stating that in the incidents of alleged illegal demolition cited in the petition filed against the UP Government, notices for violations were sent to the persons, and since they did not respond, the unauthorised constructions were demolished following the process in the municipal laws. He also opposed the contention of the petitioner and submitted that the immovable properties can be demolished only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

According to a report in Live Law, the bench said remarked that ‘lets us try to resolve the issue on pan-India basis’ while adjourning the hearing for September 17, 2024. The bench also suggested that counsels for the parties should give their suggestions so that the Court can frame appropriate guidelines. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind, submitted that several houses of persons were demolished in Delhi’ Jahangirpuri area, just after the riots in April, 2022 on the allegation that they had instigated riots. Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh also submitted that in Udaipur where a person’s house was demolished because the tenant’s son was accused of a crime.

The order dated September 2, 2024 may be read here:

SC criticized glorification, grandstanding of bulldozer action

During the hearing on September 17, 2024, while staying the arbitrary ‘bulldozer justice’ system practiced by various state governments as retaliation to accused’s property and establishments, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan flagged the glorification, grandstanding and justification of the demolition action. The bench while expressing its displeasure with ‘Bulldozer Justice” and its glorification, questioned it stating, “Now, whether this should happen in our country, Whether the Election Commission can be noticed so that some kind of a thing can be laid down?”

The bench also sought assistance from SG Tushar Mehta on the issue of glorification and grandstanding on demolition.  The bench said that “you will assist us on how to stop this. If necessary, we will ask the Election Commission also.”

Outside noise is not influencing us, illegal demolition against the ethos of the Constitution: SC

During the hearing a counsel appearing for the petitioners said that even after the Supreme Court’s September 2 order, demolitions were carried out in the country.

Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta while opposing the contention of the petitioner, submitted before the bench on September 17 that a ‘narrative’ was being built over the demolition of properties. He further said there was a petition before the apex court which alleged that because the person belonged to a particular religion, his property was demolished.

“Let them bring to your lordships’ notice one instance of demolition where the law is not complied (with),” SG Mehta added. He said that the affected parties have not approached the court because they know that they have received notices and their constructions were illegal. When SG Mehta argued about the narrative being built over the demolition action, the bench said, “Rest assured that outside noise is not influencing us.”

The bench said it will hear the matter on October 1, and till then no demolition shall be done without its leave.

When SG Mehra raised objections to the Court’s order while saying that the hands of authorities can’t be tied in this manner, Justice Gavai said that “heavens won’t fall” if the demolitions are stopped for two weeks.

Justice Gavai further stated that “Stay your hands. What will happen in 15 days?”

Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand while upholding the rule of law, stressed that, “Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition, it is against the ethos of Constitution”. Importantly, the bench observed that the executive “can’t be a judge”, it said the directives to be passed by the court after hearing the parties would apply pan-India.

The bench said it had made it clear on September 2 that the court will not protect any unauthorised construction on a public road or public place.

SG Mehta said while highlighting one of the matters, a footpath was encroached upon, and notices were issued before it was cleared. “For footpath, we will say not even a notice is needed. Demolish forthwith even if there is a religious structure of any religion,” the bench said.

The bench clarified that the order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law.

The order dated September 17, 2024 may be read here:

The matter has been listed for the next hearing on October 1, 2024

Related:

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

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 Supreme Court halts nationwide demolitions through interim order, emphasising the ethos of the Constitution appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“In a country where actions of the State are governed by the rule of law, the transgression by a family member cannot invite action against other members of the family or their legally constructed residence. Alleged involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. Moreover, the alleged crime has to be proved through due legal process in a Court of law. The Court cannot be oblivious to such demolition threats inconceivable in a nation where law is supreme. Otherwise, such actions may be seen as running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.” (Para 5)

Highlighting the importance of the legal process, the bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and SVN Bhatti declared that the actions of one family member cannot justify punitive measures against the entire family or their lawful residence. The bench warned that these demolition threats, if unaddressed, could erode public confidence in the justice system, creating a dangerous precedent where accusations are treated as verdicts, and where properties are destroyed without any legal basis. Such actions, the Court observed, are tantamount to “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land,” undermining the very essence of governance under the rule of law.

The said ruling paves a path towards a broader stance by the judiciary against extrajudicial punitive measures, indicating a commitment to safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that legal procedures are followed in addressing criminal allegations. The Court’s firm words come at a time when bulldozer actions have increasingly been used as a form of punishment, particularly in communal and politically sensitive cases, raising concerns about misuse of state power.

Details of the proceedings:

The Supreme Court bench issued a notice returnable in four weeks in response to a petition filed by Javedali Mahebubmiya Saiyed, whose family home in Village Kathlal, Kheda District, Gujarat, was under threat of demolition by municipal authorities. This threat followed the registration of an FIR against one of the petitioner’s family members on September 1, 2024. The petitioner alleged that the authorities had threatened to bulldoze his residence, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

Senior advocate Iqbal Syed, representing the petitioner, argued that his client is a co-owner of the land in question, as reflected in the revenue records. He further pointed to a resolution passed by the Kathlal Gram Panchayat on August 21, 2004, which granted permission to construct residential houses on the land. The petitioner’s family has been residing in these houses for nearly two decades.

Syed informed the Court that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nadiad, Kheda District, on September 6, 2024. The complaint requested that legal action be taken only against the individual accused of the crime and urged the authorities not to threaten or demolish the legally constructed home of the petitioner.

“The petitioner refers to the complaint under Section 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 addressed to the Deputy SP, Nadiad, Kheda District on 06.09.2024 describing the situation and making it clear that law should take its own course against the person accused of crime. But, the Nagar Palika or others in the shadow of the Nagar Palika, should have no reason to either threaten or to take any steps such as using bulldozer, to demolish the legally constructed and legally occupied house/residence of the petitioner. The counsel would also refer to the orders passed by this Court on 02.09.2024 in the WP(C) No. 295 of 2022 which indicates that for similar threats of bulldozing the residences of accused of crimes, the Court proposes to take PAN-India action.” (Para 4)

Observations by the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court, while issuing the notice, ordered that the status quo regarding the petitioner’s property be maintained until further orders. The bench highlighted that the alleged crime must be addressed through the legal process in a court of law and that punitive actions, such as demolishing homes, cannot be based merely on accusations.

“In the meantime, status quo in respect of the petitioner’s property is to be maintained by all concerned.” (Para 7)

The bench further stressed that in a country governed by the rule of law, actions against a family member should not result in punitive measures against others or their property. The bench remarked that such threats of demolition were contrary to the principles of justice and could be seen as “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land.”

The petitioner’s counsel, Iqbal Syed, drew attention to a similar Supreme Court order issued on September 2, 2024, in the case of Jamiat Ulama I Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, wherein the bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan had indicated its intention to take pan-India action against the practice of demolishing residences based on criminal allegations. Raising critical questions, the bench had questioned the rationale behind demolishing someone’s house solely based on criminal accusations. “Even if the individual is convicted, such actions cannot be justified without following the legal procedure”. The bench had, even then, expressed concern over the growing trend of using “bulldozer actions” as a punitive measure and suggested that the Court might frame nationwide guidelines to address the issue. (The detailed report can be read here.)

The present bench led by Justice Hrishikesh Roy echoed these concerns, stating that such demolition threats are inconceivable in a nation where the rule of law prevails. The Court reaffirmed that the legal process must take its course, and it would not tolerate actions that undermine the supremacy of law.

The Supreme Court’s notice to the Gujarat government and its order to maintain the status quo until further consideration marks a critical step in addressing the broader issue of authorities using demolitions as a punitive measure. The case will be revisited in four weeks when the state government is expected to respond.

The order may be accessed below:

Related:

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

Mumbai: Hundreds of people displaced after demolitions in Jai Bhim Nagar

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

Demolitions as retributive state policy used against minorities in India: Amnesty

‘Ethnic cleansing by State?’ HC stops Haryana’s Nuh & Gurugram demolitions

The post Supreme Court warns against ‘bulldozing the rule of law,’ affirms that legal process, not allegations, must govern punitive actions appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On the grounds of “acting on the stone pelting incident that occurred at the Ganesh pandal” ‘Variavi Cha Raja’ in Sayedpura on Sunday, September 8, the Surat police have arrested over 30 people. The unrest was sparked when minors allegedly threw stones at a Ganesh Chaturthi pandal, leading to violent clashes between two groups.

Background

The alleged Surat stone pelting incident occurred on September 8, 2024, in the Sayedpura area of Surat, Gujarat, India. A group of minors allegedly threw stones at a Ganesh Chaturthi pandal, sparking a communal clash between two groups. The incident resulted in property damage, injuries, and arrests. The police intervened, using tear gas and lathis to restore order. Six juveniles were detained for stone-pelting, and around 28 others were arrested for rioting. The incident has sparked widespread condemnation and calls for peace and harmony.

Hindu right-wing demands action on pelting incident, situation escalates

A large mob gathered at the Sayedpura police station, chanting slogans and demanding action against the minors involved in the stone pelting. However, the situation took a turn for the worse when an agitated crowd rushed to the spot leading to communal tensions between the two communities. Police said that stones were pelted at each other. Surat police commissioner Anupam Singh Gehlot said that several policemen were injured in the stone pelting and many vehicles were damaged. He said that the police had to resort to baton charge and fire teargas shells to disperse the mob. According to Gehlot, three separate FIRs have been filed, reported The Deccan herald.

“Illegal raids” on Muslim houses and allegation of police brutality

Allegations of police brutality have surfaced in the aftermath of the communal clashes in Surat’s Sayedpura area. In a video surfacing on social media shows police personnel, dressed in civilian clothes and without identification nametags, forcibly raided Muslim homes in the dead of night. The midnight raids have sparked widespread outrage, with many questioning the heavy-handed tactics employed by the police.

A video surfacing on X, posted by Gujrat Police shows plainclothes officers smashing gates and locks allegedly to apprehend suspects. In the video, state Home Minister Harsh Sanghvi is also shown vowing to take strict action and arrest the people over stone pelting allegations before sunrise. The video shows those arrested could not walk properly suggesting that they were subjected to violence in the police custody.

कानून व्यवस्था सभी के लिए समान है, शांति प्रिय गुजरात में अशांति फैलाने वालो को जरा भी नहीं बख्शा जाएगा।#GujaratPolice pic.twitter.com/PUPfagp7iq

— Gujarat Police (@GujaratPolice) September 9, 2024

Case registered against juveniles, says Police

According to the Indian Express, an eyewitness said that the pandal organizers and others reached the Saiyedpura police station. Police commissioner Anupam Singh Gehlot deployed a large police force as stone-pelting resumed near the station, while unknown persons torched cars and vehicles. Deputy Commissioner Vijaysinh Gurjar also incurred minor injuries. The mob eventually dispersed after the officials assured them of the arrests of the accused, all of which reportedly took place based on CCTV footage and combing the neighbourhood. Lalgate police registered an offence of damage at the Ganesh pandal and of rioting at the police chowki area.

Surat town police commissioner, Anupam Gehlot, stated that all the individuals involved in the unrest would be prosecuted. In affected area round 1,000 officers stationed to maintain peace. While speaking to ANI, Gehlot stated, “On September 8, young boys pelted stones on a pandal from a moving auto rickshaw. They tried to flee after pelleting stones. Police personnel chased and captured them immediately. There were a total of 6 people in the auto, including the driver.”

“The case was also registered against 6 juveniles who pelted stones at the pandal. Sections of BNS were invoked. After detaining the 28 accused, a process is underway to arrest others too. No accused will be spared. We have formed a few teams” the officer added, reported ANI.

Link:

#WATCH | Stone pelting on Ganesh Pandal at Surat (Gujarat) | Surat Police Commissioner Anupam Singh Gehlot says, “Yesterday, on 8th September, young boys pelted stones on a pandal from a moving autorickshaw. They tried to flee after pelleting stones…Police personnel chased and… pic.twitter.com/5a9JOb0ijE

— ANI (@ANI) September 9, 2024

The Minister of State for Home (MoS) Harsh Sanghavi has also written in a post on X that “As I promised, we have caught the stone-pelters before sunrise.” He further said that CCTV, video visuals, drone visuals, and other technical surveillance work is still ongoing and strict action will be taken against all accused.

Link:

जैसा कि मैंने वादा किया था, सूरज उगने से पहले हमने पत्थरबाजों को पकड़ लिया है!

6:30 am #सूरत अपडेट

यहाँ विवरण हैं:

⁃27 पत्थरबाज गिरफ्तार

⁃सीसीटीवी, वीडियो विजुअल्स, ड्रोन विजुअल्स और अन्य तकनीकी निगरानी कार्य अभी भी जारी है।

⁃सभी आरोपियों के खिलाफ सख्त कार्रवाई की जाएगी…

— Harsh Sanghavi (@sanghaviharsh) September 9, 2024

Supreme Courts recently rebukes on Arbitrary “Bulldozer action”

In a shocking move, the Surat local administration has deployed bulldozers to demolish homes and properties in Sayedpura area, despite the Supreme Court’s warnings against “bulldozer justice”. The demolition drive targets individuals accused of stone-pelting at a Ganesh Chaturthi pandal, sparking widespread criticism and concerns about targeting a specific community. The move has been condemned as a form of collective punishment, raising serious questions about the rule of law, due process, and human rights in India. The Supreme Court’s warnings have been blatantly ignored, sparking outrage and demands for accountability.

Earlier this month, a bench headed by Justice B R Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan stressed that even unauthorised construction has to be demolished in “accordance with the law,” and state authorities cannot resort to the demolition of the property of the accused as a punishment.

Reportedly, the authorities later clarified that the anti-encroachment drive was not linked to the rioting as it was planned weeks in advance. The Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) deployed bulldozers in the area to raze illegal concrete and temporary constructions. The municipal body also removed handcarts of street vendors in the area. Surat Deputy Mayor Narendra Patil said that the anti-encroachment drive had been planned some two weeks ago, and was not the outcome of the Sunday’s clash.

However, multiple videos shared on social media, in which people apprised the Surat Local Administration’s decision to demolish illegal encroachments and properties belongs to the accused as a retaliation of stone pelting incident.

Related:

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

Gujarat HC orders status quo on Dahod Nagina Masjid demolitions

“Bulldozer Injustice”: Authorities demolished huts and makeshifts in Kutch’s Kandla port area

The post “Bulldozer barbarism”: Demolition drive in Surat after stones thrown at Ganesh pandal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The mega demolition drive started on Thursday morning with the help of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), 550 Police personnel in the presence of port chairman Sushil Kumar Singh along with Kutch East SP Sagar Bagmar.

A few hundred fishermen have been living there and carrying out their operations from these temporary homes, said local sources. They added, “The livelihood of these fishermen is at stake. They will lose their source of income.”

Authority said national threat and security reason for demolition

Briefing the press about the demolition drive, Superintendent of Police (Kutch East), Sagar Bagmar said, “There were illegal encroachments on the Kandla Port land, which could pose a threat for domestic as well as national security. Considering this threat, illegal encroachments were removed from the Port Trust land.”

1 of 3

Demolition Drive unjust and inhumane

State Congress leader Haji Juma Raima termed the demolition drive by the Port Authority as unjust and a violation of human rights. Stating that this operation has displaced thousands of people without making alternative arrangements was unjust. He also cited the Gujarat government’s earlier promise that if they have to be removed, alternative arrangement should be made for their accommodation.

There is no information available on whether any alternative accommodation has been provided to the homeless and affected families.

Related:

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

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

The post “Bulldozer Injustice”: Authorities demolished huts and makeshifts in Kutch’s Kandla port area appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The move by the municipal corporation raises serious questions as reports suggest that the madrasa’s appeal in court was scheduled for February 2. People from the Muslim community are asking if the court was about to hear the case regarding the alleged illegal structure, why was it razed a day before it? This move is one more case of the Bulldozer being used against the state’s minorities by the Eknath Shinde Shiv Sena-Bharaitiya Janata Party (BJP) regime).

Atmosphere tense

As per reports, during the demolition, locals shouted slogans and expressed their disagreement which escalated tension in the area. Although police have successfully maintained peace till now with implementation of section 144 , the atmosphere in the area remains tense. Reports suggest that strict identity checks have been enforced for those moving in and out of the areas.

Interestingly, the  Laxtirth Vasahat Peace Committee had said that the structure in question has not faced complaints from locals or the community, asserting that actions are based on external complaints. Yesterday, former corporator Anandrao Khedkar, Yuvraj Khandagale, and peace committee members demanded an extension of encroachment proceedings in light of these concerns.

Protest from Hindutva organisations led to Bulldozer action?

Due to some questions about permissions around this Madrassa, far right Hindutva organisations had asked that the Alif Anjuman madrasa in Laxtirth Vasahat Colony be closed down. Following the protests of Hindutva organisations, the trust received a notice from the local corporation instructing them to remove the structure. In the meanwhile, the trust submitted a petition to the court. Following the court hearing on the petition, a temporary stay was granted for a certain period of time. Later, the court had denied the application to restrict the action in a hearing on January 23. However, the Municipal Corporation anti-encroachment team made all the necessary preparations and headed to demolish the Madrasa on Wednesday at approximately seven in the morning. The madrasa was razed down with the help of  three JCBs, a dumper, fire department vehicles, etc.

The entire demolition was incited it appears from local news reports after a complaint by the controversial Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal in May 2023. Thereafter as pressure built up, authorities came and sealed the Madrassa in December 2023. There unconfirmed allegations, of a bus of “children” being “stoned” after some of them raised the slogan “Jai Sri Ram.”

Hindutva organisations participating in the protests

In fact Vishva Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, BJP, Shiv Sena, Hindu Ekta Andolan, Hindu Mahasabha, etc. have been active in these protests against the Madrassa.

Related: 

Historic 600 year old Delhi mosque demolished without notice

250-year-old mosque in Delhi partially demolished in “anti encroachment drive”

Evictions are at an all-time high as bulldozers gain momentum in the country

The post Maharashtra: Bulldozer Raj, tensions rise in Kolhapur’s Laxtirth Vasahat Colony after administration demolishes Madrasa under pressure from Hindutva organisations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This abrupt intervention has drawn complaints from the local shopkeepers, who claim that the team conducted the demolition without any prior notice or due process. In addition to that reports allege that the shops that were demolished were selectively those of Muslims. 

In #Chhattisgarh‘s #Raipur, as soon as the #BJPGovt was formed, bulldozer ran on many shops, all the shops belonged to people of #Muslim Community.#ChhattisgarhElectionResults pic.twitter.com/MCX545ZUQi

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) December 5, 2023

Furthermore, according to local news outlet, Nai Duniya, the situation witnessed women students from Salem Girls School protesting against these shops. Carrying placards, these students demanded the removal of the shops, arguing that the shops were creating chaos on the street near their school.  The school administration has stated that the students had made several complaints regarding the shop but nothing had been addressed until now. 

The students complained that there were about 50 shops which sold food such as omelette, chicken, and meat, and these shops would run till late night and were frequented by scores of youth everyday which created disturbances. The men sometimes, they allege, even climbed the walls of the school, drank alcohol there, and left the bottles around. 

Earlier in April this year, the BJP, then in opposition, had claimed that Chhattisgarh under  Congress rule  has seen  criminals getting bold. The party promised action by bulldozer against such entities if it were voted to power. 

The BJP governments have been noted for their targeted use of demolitions against Muslim properties and also a targeted campaign against the public sale of meat. At election rallies nearby, UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath had reportedly placed bulldozers at his rally as icons; under his government the homes of several Muslims have been demolished. This has been seen as an attempt to instil fear in dissidents against the government, as many of homes demolished belonged to people who had protested against the government.

Related

2022: A year of the ‘Bulldozer injustice

The Post-Babri Masjid Demolition era | Has India changed in these 30 years

Displacement due to Airport Expansions? Union Response in Rajya Sabha Leaves Questions Unanswered

134 houses razed, two mosques next: “Bulldozer Justice” continues

The post “Bulldozer raj” in Chhattisgarh too? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In their pursuit of a religious nationalist objective to transform India into a Hindu nation rather than a secular one, the Bharatiya Janata Party administration has used bulldozers frequently since 2014. Bulldozers have been employed in states including Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Gujarat, and Madhya Pradesh to destroy mosques, madrassas, and the residences of a large number of Muslim activists and those accused of committing crimes on the grounds that they were on government or railway property.

Two centuries old Mosques receives notice to remove encroachments from government land:

Recently, the Railways sent notifications to two-hundred-year-old mosques in the capital city requesting that they “remove the encroachments from its land.” The two mosques, Masjid Bengali Market and Taqia Babar Shah, have been existing on the same land since 250 and 500 years respectively. The two mosques are situated on the main route between New Delhi and Ghaziabad. The administration of two mosques reportedly received notices for “encroaching on railway land,” as provided by the officials. Reportedly, the mosque administrations have been given 15 days to remove the structures, failing which the Railways will take action.

As provided by Siasat Daily, a railway official stated that the two structures against which the Northern Railways (NR) has initiated action are both built on Railways’ land. 

As per Siasat Daily, the notice pasted on mosques reads: “Railway property has been illegally encroached upon. You must voluntarily dismantle any unlicensed structures, including temples, mosques or shrines within 15 days of receiving this notice or the railway administration will take legal action. Encroachments that are not permitted will be removed in compliance with the Railways Act. Any damages incurred throughout the procedure will be your responsibility. The Railway administration won’t be held accountable.” 

As reported by the Siasat Daily, the Officials stated that it is a general practice for the Railways to issue notices to encroachers whenever they come to the attention of the authorities. NR CPRO Deepak Kumar said that the encroachments can pose a safety hazard to railway employees and passengers, and they can also damage railway property.

“The NR is committed to ensuring that railway land is used for its intended purpose, and the removal of encroachments is an important part of this commitment,” Kumar added, as per Siasat Daily. 

The post can be viewed here:

Location: New Delhi

Indian Railway authorities have issued a notice for the removal of “encroachment” to Masjid Bengali Market (250 years old) and Taqia Babar Shah mosque (500 years old).

The authorities have threatened action if mosques are not removed within 15 days. pic.twitter.com/RtdFckrKmu

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) July 23, 2023

Bulldozers ran over 134 houses, most of them belonging to Muslims

On July 21, in Nainital, Uttarakhand, an extensive operation was conducted by the government which related to the demolition of 135 illegal structures that had been erected on King Mahmudabad’s enemy property. It is essential to note that an enemy property is an immovable asset left behind by people who have taken citizenship of Pakistan and China. Reportedly, most of the demolished structures were owned by Muslims in the Raja Mahmudabad area. Notably, the demolition comes in the wake of an ordinance passed by the state government which has made the provision for a 10-year prison term for those who encroach upon government land.

As per a report by the Print, a total of JCB machines and five companies of Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), along with eighty sub-inspectors and 150 women constables pressed into action for the demolition work. 

It is essential to note here that to contest the said eviction notices by the district administration, the individuals had approached the Uttarakhand High Court. The HC had dismissed their plea and ordered them to vacate the properties immediately. The bench, led by the Chief Justice, refused to grant any relief to the encroachers, paving the way for the demolition process. Consequently, the bulldozers were deployed to the Metropole locality in Nainital city, where the illegal houses were situated.

The exercise began at 8 am on the Saturday morning, and went on for 11 hours. It was carried out under the supervision of nodal officer and Nainital Deputy Collector Shivcharan Dwivedi, SDM Rahul Shah and Superintendent of Police (crime) Jagdish Chandra, as provided by the Print. The removal of encroachments from the Metropole hotel area will help decongest the city, officials provided.

Considered one of the finest hotels of Nainital at one time, the Metropole Hotel belonged to the Raja of Mehmoodabad and hosted the founding father of Pakistan Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his wife Rattanbai on their honeymoon. After partition, the Raja of Mehmoodabad migrated to Pakistan leaving no legal heirs to the property. Hence, the hotel was declared enemy property according to the law.

The post can be viewed here:

Location: Nanital, Uttarakhand

Local authorities demolished 134 houses, mostly owned by Muslims in the Raja Mahmudabad area, claiming the structures were built on encroached land. pic.twitter.com/VYKViRjlCA

— HindutvaWatch (@HindutvaWatchIn) July 23, 2023

A worrying pattern, a symbol of oppression

It appears that the idea of justice has been altered, and bulldozers have taken its place as its emblem. The country is seeing massive machinery encroaching into specific areas under the guise of anti-encroachment campaigns. The cries of having documentation demonstrating their ownership go unheard by years. Bulldozer politics is a term used to describe a Hindutva political ideology and approach, not the usage of a bulldozer. At the moment, it is activated in areas since general elections are approaching. Its objectives are to foment religious strife, demonise a group of people—usually the Muslim minority—and seize power on the pretext of a purported Hindu identity.

Related:

Plea in Kerala HC alleging illegal encroachment in temple by RSS

Even “encroachers” need to be rehabilitated says Courts

Assam: Gauhati HC orders eviction of “encroachers” from protected reserved forests

Forest Dept admits to faults in eviction notices issued to Van Gujjars, Uttarakhand

G20 related evictions and violence on India’s poor must stop: Jury

Assam: Mass evictions continue as approximately 2500 Bengali-speaking Muslim families get displaced; pleas go unheard

Evictions are at an all-time high as bulldozers gain momentum in the country

The post 134 houses razed, two mosques next: “Bulldozer Justice” continues appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Last year was marred by a spate of evictions carried out by several governments in small pockets across states. Even as the year 2022 came to a close, and in the first weeks of the New year, the administration in these states continued with their ‘bulldozer action’: MP, UP, Uttarakhand and Assam. In 2021, the brutal eviction drive in Assam’s Dhalpur district had drawn widespread international and national condemnation.

Citizens for Justice and Peace has been carrying out a regular campaign to defend every Indian’s right to housing while highlighting the present government’s overtly discriminatory policies.

Also read

Eye for an Eye new law of the land for Muslim minorities in India?

Rights Protect, Policy Evicts

Madhya Pradesh

With the Kumbh Mela set to take place in Ujjain in 2028, the Madhya Pradesh government has requested that locals, the number of which runs into hundreds, vacate the Gulmohar neighbourhood in Ujjain. On December 27, a majority of the Gulmohar and Gyarsi colonies’ residents, who are majorly Muslims, were asked to leave their homes, according to a public notice published by the Ujjain Municipal Corporation (UMC).

A report in the Muslim mirror states that locals have claimed that a resident named Salim Bhai Patangwale passed away, in shock and trauma, as soon as the UMC notice arrived in the neighbourhood on December 11, 2022. 

As alleged by the residents of the Gulmohar and Gyarsi Colonies, no land owned by the government was used to build their dwellings. Instead, the owners have stated that they were small farmers. These people tried farming in an effort to recover their investment, but when they remained unsuccessful, they sold their land in the form of small plots to the current residents of Gulmohar and Gyarsi colonies. 

Now, the administration wants to get rid of the residents from land that is not (technically) owned by them, to prepare for an event that is scheduled for five years later. It is not a coincidence that Madhya Pradesh is a BJP run state.Observing the latest pattern in practical use in BJP state governments, if a colony is a Muslim-dominated colony, the chances of them being served with eviction notices or tier houses being demolished with bulldozers is becoming increasingly high. 

It is also crucial to highlight that these above-mentioned notices were issued in the midst of forcible demolitions that were taking place in Haldwani after an Uttarakhand court ordered the demolition of the homes of more than 4,300 Gafoor Basti inhabitants. This action has been presently stayed by the Supreme Court of India.

India, new India is unfortunately now a country where Muslims are, of late the most persistent scapegoats, experiencing violence emanating from stigma and demonizing. The ‘blame game’ stretches from whipped up propaganda about spreading the coronavirus, marryingHindu women in order to forcibly convert them or buying land in Hindu majority areas to slowly take over India. These narratives then become the ruling regime’s propaganda tool to promote an embeddedsupremacism and nationalism. This is only one of many methods to break the will of those voices resisting the path to exclusion and majoritarianism. This is a particularly vicious one pioneered in Khargone (MP), Jahagirpuri (Delhi) and Allahabad (UP) now repeated with frightening regularity. This method attacks the hearth and homes of the people belonging to religious minorities, through eviction or using bulldozers illegally. Years 2022 on has seen multiple such attacks, a new form of targeted violence.

Uttarakhand: Haldwani eviction

On December 20, 2022, a decision was pronounced by the Uttarakhand High Court that allowed for the eviction of nearly 4,000 families from a land in Haldwani that the Railways had claimed as theirs. Not only this, the court had also allowed the government to use “such force as was deemed necessary” by then to make this eviction happen. This ruling of the High Court affected more than 50,000 people living in this 2.2 km long stretch, most of whom were Muslims.

The high court’s ruling was then contested in the nation’s top court. On January 5, 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the eviction order while noting that the case had a humanitarian component that needed to be taken into account. The Supreme Court had also mentioned that eviction needs to be accomplished following due process of law and after providing suitable rehabilitation to the ones getting evicted. As soon as the stay order of the Supreme Court came, the people of Haldwani rejoiced with happiness and relief. However, even as this decision saved them from being rendered homeless, the battle is far from over. Using the power of eviction has become the new method of oppressing the religious minorities and the marginalized sections in states run by the BJP government. 

It is also pertinent to note that this is not the first time that Supreme Court has come to the rescue of residents of Haldwani Ghafoor Basti. In January 2017, Supreme Court stayed the order of the Uttarakhand High Court ordering the eviction of encroachment of land near the Haldwani railway station. But back then the land area in dispute was 29 acres. But now Railway wants occupants from about 78 acres removed.

Attacks on this Muslim basti (settlement) have been increasing since the BJP came to power in the year 2016. The sad reality of today’s India is that this eviction order will neither be the last order to render a minority community illegal and homeless, nor will the Courts of India be able to save the citizens from eviction every time. While the pretext used by the BJP government in Haldwani, illegal encroachment of railway land, was different from that in Ujjain, land needed from Kumbh Mela, the result is the same- unlawful eviction of Muslims from a Muslim dominated area.

Assam: Lakhimpur eviction 

The Himanta Biswa Sarma-led BJP government is once again preparing to clear approximately 450 hectares of “encroached” forest land in Lakhimpur district, despite a controversy boiling over alleged “targeted” eviction efforts in Assam. The Sarma government has conducted three eviction drives in the past month in an effort to eliminate two villages, Adhasona and Mohaghuli, which are home to 500 Muslim households of Bengali ancestry.

The drive will be carried out in Lakhimpur’s Pabha Reserve Forest (RF) area, once known for its wild buffalo population, by the forest department along with the district administration and police. As reported by the Outlook, despite criticism from the opposition, Sarma had stated to the Assembly on December 21 that Assam’s eviction drives to clear government and forest lands.

Around 450 hectares of Pava Reserve Forest are being cleared as part of the discriminatory eviction that the state started on January 10. Some 200 hectares of the 201-family Mohghuli village were cleared on the first day by government workers. 299 households had to relocate on January 11. The authorities destroyed the evicted residents’ crops, and they were primarily Bengali-speaking Muslims who, as per Outlook, lamented that they could not retrieve all of their possessions. A section of locals had alleged that only Bengali Muslims have been “singled out” for the eviction. It had been reported that out of some 4,500 hectares, only 501 hectares of land has been earmarked for eviction, where a particular community of Bengali Muslims live in domination.

Not only has the BJP government been accused of selectively targeted the community of Bengali Muslims, they have also been accused of unnecessarily using excessive force and militarising the atmosphere. As provided by the media reports, even while most people are cooperating, to which they have no choice because they are scared, the BJP government insists on making a spectacle out of it by deploying a lot of security, and creating a tense atmosphere.

It is also crucial to highlight that this latest eviction drives follows two other eviction exercises that had been carried out in the state of Assam in the month of December amid protests from the Opposition parties. On December 19, in what was touted as one of the largest such drives against “encroachers” on government land, around 500 families were evicted from near the birthplace of Vaishnavite saint Srimanta Sankardeva in Nagaon’s Batadrava. Protesting the Nagaon drive, the Opposition MLAs had staged a walkout in the Assembly, demanding that the government ensure alternative land for rehabilitation of the evicted families, especially when it is the season of winters. Subsequently, another such drive was undertaken at the end of December, when around 40 families were evicted from Kanara Satra in Barpeta district.

Assam actually led this brute eviction drive politics when in September 2021, the violent firing on residents, simply silently resisting the sudden attack on their homes in Dhalpur district left several dead. This also involved targeting settlements of largely Muslims, settled here for decades, following river erosion that has seen internal migration of a high order in the state.

There is a troubling and pervasive culture of hate and impunity in India, which must be seen in the context of the BJP’s attempts to disenfranchise India’s Muslim community over time, such as the contentious National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the nationalist politics of the Assamese eviction drives.

Uttar Pradesh: Kushinagar

On December 24, 2022, in the Kushinagar district of Uttar Pradesh’s Nutan Hardo village, as many as 44 Muslim families have been asked to vacate their homes with the administration claiming that the houses have been built on “encroached land.” This continues a spate of demolitions launched by BJP-ruled governments all over India.

Two circles reported that the Uttar Pradesh government has sent eviction notices to 47 families of Nutan Hardo village, Padrauna tehsil of Kushinagar, out of which 44 are Muslims.  4 families have already been asked to vacate too. Meanwhile, locals have alleged that on December 25, the Lekhpal (revenue officer) came to their village and vandalised some houses and shops of the villagers even while serving the notice, a grossly illegal act. 

60-year-old Sayida Bano, from Nutan Hardo village, told the TwoCircles.net that her family has been living in the village for generations and yet they were served the eviction notice. When queried about why they have been served the eviction notice, Sayida said, that it is because they are Muslims that they have been served this eviction notice.

Uttar Pradesh, ruled by Yogi Government, run the state with the power of Bulldozer behind them. Almost an election symbol, there have been many instances of hate speech and persecution of Muslims in this state. More than eviction drives, Uttar Pradesh government has been involved in using bulldozers to destroy the homes of the people belonging to the minority community, or madrasas and mosques, by deeming them illegal overnight. On November 17, in Uttar Pradesh’s Muzaffarnagar, district authorities razed down a 300-year old mosque. As provided by the official involved in the razing, the 300-year-old mosque was demolished as it came in the way of 709 AD Panipat-Khatima highway. The said demolition was deemed as a required move for the motive of road widening.

Conclusion

Evictions have become a regular phenomenon in several BJP-run states. The state’s politicians, the state machinery and powerful media houses all appear to be on a mission to alienate, persecute and suppress the minority communities living in India. From terming the protesting people as ‘enemies of the state’, to using state sanctioned forces with the aim of suppressing the voice of the people, an environment of threat and violence has been created for the Muslims living here.

The evictions demonstrate a pattern of discrimination against Muslim families residing on public property or property that is later determined to be owned by a government agency.

After the eviction, people’s entitlement to democratic and human rights, rehabilitation, and resettlement is also overlooked. The narrow, communal, divisive and myopic approach adopted by the BJP led administration, to categorically exclude the religious communities, is a whip to the “secular” essence promoted by our Constitution. As this new year of 2023 begins, more and more such attacks and tactics will probably be used by the BJP government to further ostracize the Muslim community.

A detailed analysis of eviction drives and bulldozer action throughout the year 2022 may be read here.

Related:

Assam police firing: CJP aids families of victims move HC

EXCLUSIVE: Three infants from evicted families die in Assam

Images from Dhalpur: A photo feature showcasing the struggles of evicted families

Photo Feature: Evicted villagers struggle to rebuild lives in Dhalpur

Spate of Demolitions continue, 44 Muslim families asked to vacate homes: Kushinagar, UP

Bulldozer injustice: this will only stop when a police officer is sent to jail, says Patna HC

‘Stop Bulldozer Raj’ Slogan Echoes at Jantar Mantar

“Bulldozer Injustice”: Time for courts to actively step in

Repair, compensate, prosecute: Parveen Fatima in petition before Allahabad HC

BJP’s Bulldozer is Breaking the Law: Subhashini Ali former MP, Kanpur

SC stays Uttarakhand HC Order, residents can’t be evicted in seven days

The post Eviction, yet another weaponised tool of the state in New India appeared first on SabrangIndia.