While the speech originated as a local executive response to the Bareilly protest, its propagation and amplification were largely mediated through national and regional media, especially Hindi television channels like Times Now Navbharat, Zee News Hindi, and News18 Hindi, which paired the CM’s words with dramatic visuals of protests, police action, and property demolitions. Short-form clips circulated widely on social media, creating a feedback loop that magnified both the rhetoric and the state response.

This media-driven amplification transformed a local law-and-order issue into a nationally visible spectacle of punitive governance, normalising coercive enforcement and targeting of a religious community. The timing and scale of dissemination may also have significant political resonance, particularly with the upcoming Bihar elections, as the Hindi-language media networks ensured that the CM’s rhetoric reached a broad, politically significant audience.

Within days the state response in Bareilly intensified: large-scale arrests, property-sealing and demolition actions, 48-hour internet suspensions, criminal FIRs (running into hundreds or thousands in some counts), and administrative notices against aides of the cleric who called the Bareilly protest. That sequence of ‘protest → CM rhetoric → heavy-handed enforcement’ raises three connected questions the rest of this piece examines in depth:

• Did the CM’s speech cross legal lines such as incitement or unlawful discrimination?
• Did the state response follow due process and the Supreme Court’s own safeguards (including the duty to investigate hate speech suo moto)?
• What are the measurable social, legal and media consequences of that political rhetoric?

What happened — a timeline

The trigger (September 4–9, 2025): The flashpoint began on September 4 when an illuminated board/banners reading “I Love Muhammad” appeared during an Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi procession in parts of Kanpur (Syed Nagar/Rawatpur). Local objections, framed by some Hindu groups as a “deviation from tradition”, led the police to register an FIR on September 9 against 24 persons (9 named, 15 unknown) for allegedly disturbing communal harmony. The complaint, according to the report of India Today, centred on shifting tents/banners into a location on a public road near a gate used by Ram Navami processions. That apparently small ritual alteration escalated as news and social media spread the story to other districts.

Escalation and the Bareilly protest (September 26–27, 2025): On September 26, a public gathering in Bareilly — called in sympathy with the “I Love Muhammad” campaign and associated with cleric Tauqeer Raza Khan — clashed with police after Friday prayers; police used lathi-charge and reported stone-pelting and injuries to officers. According to a report of Times of India, authorities say the protest had been called without permission; police also said the gathering showed signs of pre-planning through social media groups. Multiple FIRs and detentions followed. Local reporting states dozens detained with FIRs filed against hundreds — and some outlets report FIR counts running into the thousands across multiple stations. Shortly after the clashes, the cleric and several aides were arrested.

The Chief Minister’s response (September 28, 2025): Speaking at a public ‘Viksit UP’ event, CM Yogi Adityanath warned that those who “vandalise in the name of faith… attack the police… we won’t let you go… chedhoge to chodenge nahi aur chodenge nahi toh fir chootoge bhi nahi.” He used phrases such as “denting and painting must be done” and framed the response as necessary to protect festivals and public safety. These comments were widely reported and repeated across national news outlets the same day and the day after.

The contentious speeches delivered by CM Adityanath are:

अगर बेटी की सुरक्षा पर हाथ डालने का प्रयास किया,
व्यापारी के प्रतिष्ठान में आग लगाने का प्रयास किया,
उत्सव में अराजकता पैदा करने प्रयास किया तो,

यह रास्ता सीधे नर्क में जाने का होगा… pic.twitter.com/gUV9vkYnRX

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ हिन्दुस्तान की धरती पर नहीं होगा,

अगर किसी को जहन्नुम में जाना हो तो ‘गजवा-ए-हिंद’ के नाम पर अराजकता पैदा करने का कुत्सित प्रयास करे…

देर-सबेर ‘छांगुर’ जैसे हाल तो उनके भी होने ही हैं… pic.twitter.com/8V6MXvZbgm

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

छोटे-छोटे बच्चों को जिनके हाथों में कलम होनी चाहिए, जिनके हाथों में नोटबुक होनी चाहिए, विज्ञान और गणित की पुस्तकें होनी चाहिए, उनके हाथों में I Love Muhammad का पोस्टर…

…इनको यह भी नहीं मालूम कि उनकी जिंदगी तो बर्बाद है ही लेकिन इन बच्चों की भी जिंदगी ये लोग बर्बाद करने पर… pic.twitter.com/rhCBIxoh71

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

याद रखना!

जब भी दुस्साहस करोगे, ऐसे ही पिटोगे जैसे बरेली के अंदर पीटे गए हो… pic.twitter.com/AZWOU4m495

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

लव-जिहाद, धर्मांतरण और गो-तस्करी जैसी राष्ट्र विरोधी गतिविधियों के प्रति हमें सतर्क रहना होगा,

अगर कहीं कोई भूल से भी इस प्रकार की गतिविधियों में लिप्त है, उसकी सूचना ससमय पुलिस और प्रशासन को उपलब्ध करवाइए,

उपचार की व्यवस्था हम स्वयं कर लेंगे… pic.twitter.com/wLTyTcChgD

— Yogi Adityanath (@myogiadityanath) September 28, 2025

2025): After the violence and speeches, the district administration moved decisively: large-scale arrests and FIRs were filed, properties linked to accused persons were sealed or demolished by the local authority demolished including a banquet hall and other structures allegedly used by those arrested, administrative notices, for example, power-theft notices, were issued against associates of the cleric, and internet and SMS services in Bareilly district were suspended for 48 hours citing maintenance of public order, as per The Economic Times. Several human-rights and legal activists have already filed petitions and complaints alleging lack of prior notice for demolition and possible collective punishment. Political parties and civil-society delegations have begun to visit the city; opposition leaders are demanding investigations.

The problem with the speech itself

1. Targeting + personal reference. The CM specifically attacked a cleric’s actions, namely Tauqeer Raza Khan, and conduct in public, saying that the “Maulana forgot who is in power” and promising retribution that would be remembered by “future generations.” Targeting an identifiable leader and associating him and his followers with violence elevates the rhetoric beyond abstract law-and-order language.
2. Punitive metaphors taken literally. The repeated use of “denting and painting” and explicit references to the “bulldozer” rhetorical universe, and actual demolitions in other recent UP campaigns, is not merely figurative; in the current UP context it has an institutional history as a public performance of punishment — a state spectacle with material consequences. The phrase therefore reads as both a policy cue and a public warning.
3. Promise of force / deterrence directed at a community act. Even if the immediate trigger was violence, the CM’s formula — “If you trouble us, we will not spare you” — was framed to deter a specific form of expressive action, such as displaying I Love Muhammad posters, that political actors and some civil-society figures had defended as speech. The combination of delegitimisation, portraying the slogan as manipulation of children or anarchy, plus promise of collective discipline is consequential.

Those three features — naming, punitive metaphor, and generalised deterrence — are the elements that make legal and normative analysis urgent.

Media: Who amplified, and how amplification changed the story

The media ecosystem played a decisive role in transforming Yogi Adityanath’s remarks from a local political reaction into a nationally mediated performance of power. Within hours of his speech, both television and print outlets had front-paged his most aggressive lines — “chedhoge to chodenge nahi” and “denting and painting must be done” — turning threats of retribution into viral catchphrases.

National and regional broadcasters, including Times Now Navbharat, Zee News Hindi, and News18 Hindi, ran segments that paired these quotes with dramatic visuals of protests, lathicharges, and property demolitions. The YouTube thumbnails and on-screen tickers themselves became an extension of the state’s messaging — text overlays like “Maulana bhool gaya kaun sarkar mein hai” or “Bareilly mein danga, sarkar ki kathor karwai” visually encoded the CM’s warning as spectacle and slogan.

This media choreography had a dual effect. First, it nationalised the CM’s rhetoric, ensuring that what began as a local communal disturbance was recast as a state-wide law-and-order triumph. Second, the widespread replaying of his lines — often stripped of context and accompanied by enforcement footage — normalised the language of punishment and deterrence. Even platforms that did not editorially endorse the speech contributed to its amplification through repetition and aestheticisation.

Some outlets, such as The Wire and The Indian Express, offered a countervailing frame: detailed timelines, verification of police claims about “online toolkits,” and critical analysis of the administration’s disproportionate use of force. But these were exceptions within an overwhelming current of performative law-and-order coverage. The split in framing — between law-and-order narratives and civil-liberties scrutiny — reveals how editorial positioning directly shapes the moral valence of communal incidents.

Short-form videos from these channels, extracted as YouTube shorts and Twitter/X reels, circulated widely on social media. These clips — the CM’s warning juxtaposed with scenes of violence and police deployment — fed a feedback loop: the more viral the visual, the stronger the administrative justification for subsequent measures like internet suspension and mass arrests. In effect, the media ecology and the state’s coercive apparatus became mutually reinforcing.

This convergence also raises a constitutional question about mediated governance. When executive speech, journalistic amplification, and administrative coercion operate in sync, the boundary between state messaging and independent reportage collapses. The outcome is not merely the spread of information, but the construction of a “performance of control”, where the appearance of decisive governance substitutes for adherence to due process.

Attached is a collection of YouTube thumbnails from Times Now Navbharat, Zee News Hindi, and News18 Hindi demonstrates this vividly — a montage of headlines that blur the line between news coverage and narrative reinforcement, framing punitive action as political virtue.

Legal frame: what the law says and where courts have drawn the line

Three interlocking legal rules matter here:

• The statutory toolbox for “hate” / public-order speech: India’s criminal law criminalises speech that promotes enmity or hatred between groups (e.g., IPC Section 153A/Section 198 BNS), imputations prejudicial to national integration (IPC Section 153B/Section 197 BNS), deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings (IPC Section 295A/Section 298 BNS), and statements likely to create terror or public alarm (IPC Section 505/Section 356 BNS). These are the provisions courts and police typically invoke in communal-speech cases. The Supreme Court has emphasised that lawful restrictions must be precisely applied and proportionate
• The Supreme Court’s duty-to-act on hate speech: Shaheen Abdulla and follow-up orders: In Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022), the Supreme Court highlighted the “growing climate of hate” and directed police chiefs to take suo motu action in hate-speech incidents — specifically instructing registration and investigation under IPC sections such as 153A, 295A and 505 without waiting for a private complaint. These directions were later extended to all States/UTs; the court took the view that proactive policing is essential to preserve the secular fabric envisaged by the Preamble. That jurisprudence puts an onus on state police: if a public utterance plausibly constitutes hate speech, police must investigate it on their own motion.
• The constitutional limit: incitement and proximity to violence: Indian courts have insisted on a context-sensitive test. The classic guide is Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), where the Supreme Court upheld sedition law only for words that have the “tendency or intention of creating public disorder” or inciting violence; mere abusive or critical expression cannot be criminalised. Modern caselaw returns to the same principle: to punish speech the state must show an intention or proximate tendency to produce imminent lawless action — not merely dislikeable or provocative words. This high threshold matters because it keeps robust political speech protected while allowing punishment where speech is truly dangerous.

Apply the law to the facts: Did the UP CM cross the line?

This is the crucial, uncomfortable question. Courts usually apply a two-part analysis to political speech by powerful actors:

• Does the speech itself contain elements of the statutory offences?

The Chief Minister’s speech went beyond mere governance rhetoric. It singled out a specific cleric and his supporters, implicitly ascribing collective culpability to a religious community. The language of punishment and humiliation—phrases such as “denting and painting” or “beaten as in Bareilly”—was not random metaphor; it invoked a visual and historical grammar of state-sanctioned coercion. These expressions are deeply loaded in Uttar Pradesh’s recent political lexicon, symbolising demolition drives, police beatings, and targeted action that disproportionately affect Muslim localities.

Further, the assertion that “future generations” would be taught a lesson carries the unmistakable tone of collective retribution, extending the threat from present offenders to an entire community across time. Such language constructs Muslims not as citizens subject to law, but as an enduring adversarial category — a perpetual “other” against whom exemplary force is justified.

Under Sections 153A (now Section 196 of BNS) and 295A (now Section 298 of BNS)  of the Indian Penal Code, the test for criminality hinges not merely on overt incitement but also on whether the speech promotes enmity, targets a community, or is likely to disturb public tranquillity. Read against the backdrop of recent police actions in UP—demolition of Muslim-owned properties, custodial violence, and selective FIRs—the Chief Minister’s words may reasonably be understood as an endorsement and encouragement of discriminatory state practices.

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in cases such as Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020) clarifies that when influential figures make statements capable of mobilising real-world hostility, the likelihood of incitement must be assessed contextually, not in isolation. From that perspective, Yogi Adityanath’s remarks arguably cross the boundary from administrative assertion into speech that legitimises and incites discrimination.

In sum, while the speech may not contain an explicit call to violence, it performs a dog-whistle function: normalising state-backed hostility and signalling permissibility for coercive action against a targeted religious group. In legal terms, that makes it a fit case for prima facie examination under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) IPC, especially given the speaker’s constitutional position and the demonstrable pattern of violence that followed.

• What changed after the speech? (state action and proportionality)

The true constitutional stakes emerge not merely from what was said, but from what followed. When a Chief Minister’s public rhetoric is swiftly mirrored by administrative action—bulldozers rolling in, FIRs multiplying overnight, and digital blackouts silencing affected districts—the question is no longer one of abstract speech, but of state power animated by speech.

In the immediate aftermath of Yogi Adityanath’s address, municipal and police authorities in multiple UP districts launched coordinated operations: mass detentions of Muslim youth, property demolitions framed as “encroachments,” and sweeping suspension of internet services. These were not isolated law-and-order responses but a choreographed display of retribution, executed without adequate notice, hearing, or judicial oversight.

Courts have repeatedly emphasised that executive spectacle cannot substitute due process. In its observations concerning “bulldozer justice,” the Supreme Court has held that demolitions carried out as instantaneous punishment for alleged offences are unconstitutional unless preceded by notice, opportunity to respond, and adherence to municipal laws (Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, 2022). The law draws a bright line: urban planning cannot be weaponised as penal theatre. Yet, in Uttar Pradesh, the chain of events—fiery speech followed by visible coercive measures—suggests a punitive motive masquerading as law enforcement.

Equally significant is the Shaheen Abdulla v. Union of India (2022) principle, which imposes a positive duty on the police: they must initiate suo-moto FIRs against hate speech, irrespective of the speaker’s political stature. The judgment underscored that inaction is complicity, and selective enforcement deepens discrimination. In this case, law enforcement pursued alleged protestors with urgency but failed to act on the Chief Minister’s inflammatory remarks, despite clear statutory grounds under Sections 153A, 295A, and 505(2) IPC.

The constitutional doctrine of proportionality also comes into play. Administrative actions must bear a rational nexus to legitimate aims, employ the least restrictive means, and avoid discriminatory impact. Yet the scale and selectivity of post-speech measures—demolitions confined largely to Muslim-majority neighbourhoods, police raids on specific youth groups, and the near-complete absence of accountability for vigilante actors—suggest a pattern of collective punishment rather than targeted, proportionate law enforcement.

As many have noted, when executive speech operates as a signal and the bureaucratic apparatus responds with coercive overreach, the boundary between political rhetoric and state sanction collapses. The state ceases to act as a neutral arbiter and instead becomes a performer in its own moral spectacle, projecting deterrence through fear.

In sum, while Yogi Adityanath’s speech might be defensible as political expression if viewed in isolation, the temporal and causal sequence of events—immediate arrests, sweeping FIRs, and punitive demolitions—creates a compelling case that state power was deployed not for justice but for signalling. Such a pattern raises grave constitutional concerns under Articles 14, 19, and 21, even if establishing direct criminal culpability for the speech remains legally complex.

The ground reality: Evidence of disproportionate enforcement and social fallout

The aftermath of the Bareilly clashes reveals a pattern that extends far beyond a conventional law-and-order response. It reflects a multi-tiered exercise of coercive state power, activated in the wake of the Chief Minister’s speech and sustained through both formal and informal mechanisms of punishment.

• Mass arrests and sweeping FIRs: In the immediate aftermath, police operations intensified across Bareilly and adjoining districts. Reports cited dozens of detentions within hours, and FIRs naming hundreds—sometimes even thousands—of individuals. According to The Times of India, nearly 2,000 people were named across multiple police stations, though the exact number varied by outlet. The breadth of these FIRs—often containing generalised allegations—raises serious questions about collective culpability and the use of preventive detention as a form of intimidation rather than targeted investigation.
• Property sealing and demolitions: Municipal and development authorities undertook swift demolition and sealing drives against properties allegedly linked to the accused—among them a banquet hall and other commercial structures. Families reported that no prior notice or opportunity to be heard was provided, prompting complaints to the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission. As The Times of India noted, these measures echo the state’s recent pattern of bulldozer-led punitive actions, widely criticised by rights groups as performative retribution designed to convey dominance rather than ensure compliance with planning laws. The recurrence of such demolitions immediately after communal incidents suggests a deliberate conflation of criminal liability with property ownership and community identity.
• Administrative and regulatory reprisals: Alongside police action, the administration issued a series of “ancillary punishments”—including power-theft notices, income recovery claims, and regulatory sanctions against persons associated with the cleric at the centre of the protests. These quasi-civil penalties compounded the economic and psychological burden on affected families. The simultaneity of these measures—each lawful in isolation but collectively disproportionate—points to a pattern of cumulative punishment through bureaucratic instruments.
• Communications blackouts: Authorities imposed a 48-hour suspension of mobile internet, broadband, and SMS services across Bareilly district, citing the need to curb rumours and prevent mobilisation. The Economic Times reported that this was one of several recent instances where internet shutdowns have become the default administrative reflex during communal tensions. Such measures, while framed as precautionary, raise acute proportionality and necessity concerns under the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of Indiav (2020) standard, which requires narrowly tailored, time-bound restrictions and periodic review.
• Societal reverberations and exclusionary practices: The social aftershocks were equally significant. Civil-society observers and media, such as LiveMint documented a perceptible tightening of social boundaries in the weeks following the incident. Muslims reportedly faced pressure to abstain from participating in garba celebrations and other public festivities, and instances were noted where Hindutva groups sought to monitor or exclude Muslim presence at cultural events. Though less quantifiable, these developments illustrate how executive rhetoric and coercive enforcement combine to legitimise exclusion at the community level, embedding state-endorsed bias within everyday social interactions.

Taken together, these events depict not an isolated breakdown of order but a coordinated sequence: rhetoric, repression, and social sanction. The cycle of speech, enforcement, spectacle, and exclusion forms a distinctive template of governance—where administrative action doubles as political performance, and punishment itself becomes a form of public messaging.

The Political Economy of Hard-line Rhetoric: How speech translates into power

Whether by deliberate strategy or downstream effect, hard-line public rhetoric by state leaders like Yogi Adityanath yields three tangible advantages for majoritarian or vigilante actors operating at the political margins. It converts language into action, rhetoric into legitimacy, and coercion into spectacle.

1. Implicit legitimisation of vigilante policing: When a head of government publicly vows “uncompromising action” and uses metaphors of retribution—such as “denting and painting” or “we will not spare you”—the message travels well beyond the bureaucracy. It functions as a symbolic green light for local affiliates, vigilante groups, and ideological sympathisers. These actors interpret the rhetoric as moral endorsement for “citizen policing” or social intimidation campaigns under the guise of defending faith or nationalism. Civil-society reports document a consistent pattern: Hindutva outfits intensify surveillance of Muslim participation in cultural events—such as garba celebrations or processions—soon after high-profile communal statements. In practice, this rhetoric lowers the cost of vigilantism, creating a permissive environment where harassment appears state-sanctioned.
2. Narrative control and inversion: Strongman rhetoric also reshapes the moral sequence of events. By branding expressive or devotional acts—such as the “I Love Muhammad” posters—as “provocations,” the state repositions itself as the neutral guarantor of order, while protestors are recast as disruptors. This narrative inversion turns a community’s assertion of faith into a law-and-order problem, allowing the administration to deploy coercion with minimal public pushback.
   As The Wire and other critical outlets observed, media framing plays a decisive role: channels that foreground “riots” and “discipline” amplify the executive’s preferred storyline, while those that question due process or disproportionality are marginalised as “soft on disorder.” The result is a feedback loop where political rhetoric and editorial selection co-produce legitimacy.
3. Electoral signalling and mobilisation gains: Beyond its immediate administrative use, hard-line speech operates as a performative display of strength aimed at a political constituency. The imagery of bulldozers, swift arrests, and collective punishment serves as a spectacle of decisive governance, projecting control and dominance. Scholars of South Asian populism have noted that such performances of punishment—what The Loop terms “punitive populism”—transform the machinery of justice into an instrument of emotional reassurance for the majority. Each demolition or crackdown becomes not just an act of enforcement but a ritual reaffirmation of political identity, blurring the lines between public order and electoral theatre.

Taken together, these three dynamics show how rhetoric, media, and enforcement converge into a single ecosystem of majoritarian power. In this model, punishment is not merely administered—it is performed, televised, and voted upon.

Accountability gaps and legal remedies

The aftermath of the Bareilly episode demands more than commentary — it demands accountability. When executive speech, administrative action, and media amplification intersect to produce coercive outcomes, the constitutional order must provide correctives. The following lines of legal and institutional response arise directly from existing Supreme Court jurisprudence and human-rights practice:

1. Suo moto inquiry into the Chief Minister’s speech under the Shaheen Abdulla directions: The Supreme Court has made it unequivocally clear that police are under a continuing duty to register suo moto FIRs in cases of hate speech, regardless of the speaker’s political position. Inaction in the face of potentially inflammatory statements by high public officials amounts to contempt of the Court’s directions. A representation to the High Court or Supreme Court seeking compliance would therefore be legally tenable if no inquiry has yet been initiated.
2. Judicial review of demolitions and sealing drives for arbitrariness and disproportionality: The Supreme Court’s November 2024 observations on “bulldozer justice” caution that demolitions used as instant punishment violate due process. Every affected person is entitled to prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, and independent adjudication before property action. Where municipal or development authorities acted immediately after communal incidents, those demolitions merit judicial scrutiny as punitive theatre rather than lawful urban regulation.
3. Human-rights complaints and public-interest petitions documenting the full sequence: The timeline itself — from the Kanpur FIRs to the Bareilly clashes, the CM’s speeches, and the administrative crackdown — forms crucial evidence of state overreach and selective enforcement. Complaints to the NHRC, the State Human Rights Commission, or the jurisdictional High Court can seek independent inquiry, victim compensation, and publication of findings. Precedents show that such petitions have successfully compelled state responses and stayed coercive action.
4. Media accountability and transparency demands: Given the central role of television and digital platforms in magnifying punitive rhetoric, transparency measures are essential. Broadcasters and social media intermediaries should be required to preserve all footage, thumbnails, and metadata for future scrutiny. Outlets that used sensational promos can be asked to issue contextual clarifications or corrections through the NBDSA process. Simultaneously, police and civic authorities must disclose the legal basis for mass FIRs, demolition orders, and internet suspensions. Public disclosure often becomes the first step toward halting unchecked executive excess.

Conclusions — legal risk, democratic cost

The Bareilly “I Love Muhammad” row and its aftermath sit at a critical intersection of power and speech in contemporary India. What began as an expressive act — a slogan, a banner, a theological or identity affirmation — was transformed rapidly under political and administrative force into a narrative of provocation, then into a sequence of punitive state interventions.

Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s rhetoric did more than warn: it arguably furnished the legal and moral scaffolding for escalated state action — actions that, according to credible reportage, stretched procedural norms, threatened minority rights, chilled speech, and disrupted daily life for many. Legal redress is challenging but not impossible: the constitutional framework, statutory provisions, and Supreme Court precedents exist to push back against such overreach.

Bareilly is therefore not just a local incident. It’s a test case. If the judicial system, civil society, and media fail to rigorously examine speech + enforcement, the precedent is troubling: political speech that combines identity, faith, punitive promise and spectacle becomes a license to marginalise. For democracy to survive in such moments, the invisible boundary between “law-and-order” and state overreach must be policed with the same seriousness with which we monitor overt dissent.

References:

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/take-suo-motu-action-against-hate-speech-crimes-without-waiting-for-complaint-supreme-court-212282

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/what-is-i-love-muhammad-row-and-why-it-sparked-protests-across-india-barawafat-procession-kanpur-nagpur-hyderabad-owaisi-full-story-2791497-2025-09-22

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/bareilly-cleric-among-8-held-2000-booked-31-detained/articleshow/124185812.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/i-love-muhammad-row-up-cm-yogi-adityanath-warns-habitual-law-breakers-after-bareilly-protest-says-denting-painting-must-be-done/articleshow/124189795.cms

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/internet-suspended-in-bareilly-for-48-hours-after-i-love-muhammad-row/articleshow/124273149.cms

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/yogi-adityanath-warns-i-love-mohammad-protesters-chedhoge-to-fir-chodhenge-nahi-11758975758381.html

https://thepolisproject.com/research/sc-verdict-demolitions-statecraft/

https://thewire.in/politics/i-love-muhammad-banner-controversy-how-routine-decoration-in-kanpur-sparked-nationwide-protests-and-crackdowns

https://www.scobserver.in/journal/bulldozer-demolitions-remind-of-a-lawless-ruthless-state-of-affairs-declares-supreme-court-as-it-issues-pan-india-guidelines

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/i-love-muhammad-row-plea-filed-in-human-rights-body-on-demolition-ofproperties-in-bareilly-affected-families-say-no-prior-notice-sent/articleshow/124345491.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bareilly/i-love-muhammad-row-rs-1-crore-power-theft-notice-to-tauqeer-razas-aides/articleshow/124324197.cms

https://theloop.ecpr.eu/bulldozer-justice-punitive-populism-in-india/

https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/i-love-muhammad-row-cleric-tauqeer-raza-detained-protest-10274731

https://theprint.in/politics/cleric-who-once-said-modi-should-learn-from-yogi-whos-tauqeer-khan-in-eye-of-i-love-muhammad-storm

https://kmsnews.org/kms/2025/09/20/muslims-protest-across-india-against-registration-of-case-for-writing-i-love-muhammad-saw.html

https://sabrangindia.in/register-prosecute-hate-speech-offences-promptly-uphold-rule-law-sci-all-states

https://sabrangindia.in/hate-crime-hate-speech-scs-scrutiny-continue

https://sabrangindia.in/free-speech-even-in-bad-taste-is-protected-if-no-incitement-to-violence-hp-hc

https://www.toaep.org/pbs-pdf/138-lokur-damojipurapu

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/tension-in-bareilly-drones-are-up-ahead-of-friday-prayer-internet-shut-down/articleshow/124280351.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/one-can-say-i-love-modi-but-not-i-love-mohammad-owaisi-amid-bareilly-unrest-condemns-violence/articleshow/124284809.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/i-love-mohammad-march-violence-after-stone-pelting-in-bareilly-cops-resort-to-lathicharge/articleshow/124157113.cms

https://cjp.org.in/bns-2023-does-nothing-to-bring-in-a-nuanced-effective-understanding-of-hate-speech-making-its-prosecution-even-more-difficult

https://cjp.org.in/cjp-files-complaints-against-the-hate-speeches-delivered-in-uttar-pradesh

https://cjp.org.in/the-sentinel-and-the-shift-free-speech-in-the-supreme-court

https://thelogicalindian.com/chedhoge-to-chodhenge-nahi-yogi-adityanaths-warning-after-i-love-mohammad-protest-turns-violent-in-up

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/internet-cut-for-48-hours-in-ups-bareilly-amid-i-love-muhammad-posters-row-9384013

https://article-14.com/post/govt-whataboutery-inaction-why-hate-speech-persists-despite-the-supreme-court-wanting-to-stop-it-64c3372224505

The post From Words to Bulldozers: How a Chief Minister’s rhetoric triggered and normalised punitive policing in Bareilly appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“These lands will host a Rs 40,000 crore project. Tenders will be issued soon,” Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said at a press conference on June 22.

But the land in question is not barren. These are villages inhabited by more than 2,500 families, many of whom have lived there for generations, others who settled after their homes were swallowed by the Brahmaputra due to decades of riverbank erosion. These communities, mostly landless, economically marginalised Muslim families, have now been rendered homeless yet again.

Inhabitants say they were given barely 48 hours to dismantle their lives. No formal notices, no rehabilitation plans, no time to carry away their belongings. Some resistance was seen, but was met with massive police deployment, reportedly in the thousands, and dozens of bulldozers. The eviction drive wiped out homes, belongings, schools, a medical sub-centre, and power supply to the area. Schooling and medical services have ground to a halt.

Among the land being cleared, about 1,000 bighas is reportedly owned by patta (land-title) holders, who are being offered Rs 50,000 compensation and relocation, but even this is being questioned as woefully inadequate. “How can Rs 50,000 compensate for generations of stability, for homes, for access to land and schools?” asked one resident, while speaking to The Scroll.

Echoes of resistance in Bodoland

This is not the first time this patch of Assam has seen attempts to clear land for corporate interests. Earlier, a similar tract in the Parbatjhora area of the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) was marked for acquisition. But that land fell under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, offering protections to tribal areas. Strong opposition from the Bodo community, backed by segments of Assamese civil society, forced the government to halt the project—at least temporarily.

But in Dhubri, where the displaced are mostly Bengali-origin Muslims without political clout or Sixth Schedule protection, the bulldozers moved unhindered.

Goalpara: Second front of displacement

While homes were being razed in Dhubri, another front of mass eviction was underway in Goalpara district. On June 16, authorities cleared over 1,500 bighas of land in Hasila Beel, displacing 667 families and demolishing homes, shops, five lower primary schools, and a Jal Jeevan Mission water project.

Just weeks later, on July 12, eviction resumed in the Paikan Reserve Forest (PRF), a legally protected forest under the Krishnai Range. Officials said the land was notified as a reserve forest in 1982, but the Goalpara Lawyers’ Association has argued that forest rights claims of thousands living in the area remain unresolved. In 2022, they submitted a memorandum demanding compliance with the Assam Forest Regulation of 1891 and a proper settlement process before evictions.

That call went unheeded.

On July 12, 1,080 families, again largely Bengali-origin Muslims, were evicted. Officials confirmed that 2,700 structures were torn down using 40 bulldozers, with over 1,000 police personnel on site. While the administration claimed the operation was “peaceful,” rights groups argue that “peace” enforced by overwhelming force is not consent, and certainly not justice.

Lawyers and local leaders like Jiten Das and Wazed Ali spoke to The Scroll and pointed out that 472 villages in Goalpara have been lost to erosion over four decades, leaving thousands of displaced people with no alternative but to settle in forest or wetland zones. “These people did not invade the land. They escaped disaster and tried to survive,” said a local advocate, as per the report.

A pattern of targeting the vulnerable

In just a month, five major eviction drives have been carried out in four Assam districts, namely Dhubri, Lakhimpur, Nalbari and Goalpara displacing nearly 3,500 families, most of which are Bengali-origin Muslims. In every case, the pattern is disturbingly familiar: bulldozers arrive with little notice, security forces outnumber the unarmed residents, and no meaningful rehabilitation is offered.

The opposition has strongly criticised the government’s actions, calling the eviction policy arbitrary, anti-poor, and communally biased. There is growing concern that migrant Bengali-speaking Muslims are being selectively targeted, branded as “encroachers” or “illegal foreigners”, despite often having lived on the land for decades, even generations.

Many of the affected areas, such as the Brahmaputra basin and wetlands like Hasila Beel, have become refuge zones for communities displaced by environmental collapse. Now, they are being displaced again—this time by the bulldozer in service of “development.”

Bulldozing justice

The humanitarian cost of these operations is staggering: children pulled out of school, medical services shuttered, families forced to live under tarpaulins, and a future reduced to rubble. No comprehensive resettlement plan exists. No legal forum appears to be actively hearing the residents’ claims.

What the Assam government brands as a victory for industrial growth is, for the displaced, a catastrophic collapse of rights, dignity, and survival. And as bulldozers pave the way for corporate projects like Adani’s, what remains buried beneath the newly cleared land are the broken dreams of the very people who built their lives there—one flood, one setback, one shelter at a time.

Related:

India’s Stealthy Pushback: Thousands of alleged “Bangladeshi immigrants” deported without due process across states

Another Pushback Halted: SC stays deportation of woman declared foreigner, issues notice on challenge to Gauhati HC order

After incorrect detention claim, Gauhati HC was informed that Doyjan Bibi was handed over to BSF

“Bail once granted can’t be ignored”: Gauhati HC seeks legal basis for re-detentions of COVID-era released detainees

The post Development by Displacement: Assam evicts thousands for Adani project without due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

#BREAKING

AMC demolishes illegal settlements near Chandola Lake #Ahmedabad

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

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

— Nabila Jamal (@nabilajamal_) April 29, 2025

A persistent challenge around Chandola Lake

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

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

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

Ministerial justification: called ongoing demolition as national security response

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

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

Chandola Lake Ahmedabad!!

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

Key Aspects of Demolition Drive:

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

— Harsh Sanghavi (@sanghaviharsh) April 29, 2025

Arrest and investigation of Lala Mehmood Pathan

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

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

Gujarat High Court denies interim relief, cites illegality of construction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Petitioner advocate’s critique: questioning identification and due process

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

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

— ANI (@ANI) April 29, 2025

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

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

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

“Sensitive Input” trumps natural justice in urgent hearing

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: Demolition in the shadow of violence

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

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

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

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

Detailed report may be read here.

The NMC’s Defence: Unawareness and apology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss of shelter, erosion of dignity

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

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

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

Conclusion: Accountability, not apologies

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The order of the High Court may be read here

Related:

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

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

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

— The Hindu (@the_hindu) March 24, 2025

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

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

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

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

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

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

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

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

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

— ANI (@ANI) March 24, 2025

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

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

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

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

Lifting of curfew, multiple arrest and a fatality

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

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

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

Communal narratives and unverified claims of ‘Bangladeshi’ links

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

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

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

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

Police action, alleged mastermind and multiple FIRs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aurangzeb’s tomb covered by tin sheets

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

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

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

Congress response to the violence and reports of state bias

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

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

Sequence of events and aftermath

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

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

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

(A detailed report may be read here and here)

A disturbing precedent

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

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

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

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

According to reports, the controversy began when a local resident associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) accused a teenage boy of raising so-called “anti-India” slogans during the cricket match. The allegations, based on overheard statements, led to a gathering of people outside the minor’s residence, creating a volatile atmosphere. Subsequently, the Malvan police registered an FIR against the boy and his parents, leading to their arrest. The municipal authorities then took swift and arbitrary action by demolishing their scrap shop without issuing a prior notice. Further revelations indicated that the residence of the boy’s paternal uncle was also demolished without following legal procedures.

SHRC Order Highlights Violations of Due Process and Rule of Law

As per the IE, taking suo-moto cognisance of the reports, the SHRC issued a strongly worded order, stating that a preliminary reading of the news items indicated a prima facie violation of legal due process. The order categorically noted that “the principles of rule of law, which form the foundation of democratic governance, have been flouted in this case.”

Reportedly, the commission also observed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, which protect individuals from arbitrary state action, had been severely compromised. It further emphasised that the criminal justice system, which requires a legal process to determine guilt, had been bypassed, with the administration usurping judicial functions. The order underlined that such actions violated the doctrine of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution, which is recognised as part of its basic structure.

The SHRC’s observations align with the Supreme Court’s November 2024 ruling, which explicitly directed that no demolition should take place within 15 days of a show-cause notice being issued unless the structure in question was an unauthorised construction in a public space such as a road or street. The fact that no such notice was served in this case suggests a blatant disregard for established legal safeguards.

The commission has sought a fact-finding inquiry report from the Sindhudurg district collector and the Superintendent of Police regarding the incident. A division bench comprising retired Justice Swapna Joshi and former IPS officer Sanjay Kumar is set to hear the matter.

Procedural lapses and political influence

It had also come to light that the MSHRC had been without a chairperson and member at the time the reports were first published on February 25, 26, and 27, 2025. The suo-motu cognisance was taken only after the new appointments were made, underscoring a delayed but necessary response from the human rights body.

The controversy erupted when Sachin Varadkar, a self-identified VHP worker, alleged that he had overheard the 15-year-old making “anti-national” remarks while riding past the boy’s home on his motorcycle. He later confronted the boy and escalated the matter by filing a police complaint. Within days, police had arrested the boy’s parents and detained the minor, sending him to an observation home. Meanwhile, the Malvan municipal authorities, reportedly acting on complaints from locals and a letter from Shiv Sena MLA Nilesh Rane, razed the family’s scrap shop. The demolition reportedly took place without official bulldozers, raising concerns that vigilante groups may have been involved.

Municipal Chief Officer Santosh Jirge initially justified the demolition, claiming that the scrap shop was an “unauthorised structure” and was obstructing traffic. However, further scrutiny revealed that the structure had been demolished the same day a complaint was received, without any due notice or legal verification. Jirge later admitted, as per the IE report, that no official record was available to determine when the structure was built, further exposing the arbitrary nature of the demolition. (Detailed story may be read here.)

Political backing and the role of the state

The demolition was openly endorsed by Shiv Sena MLA Nilesh Rane, who posted images of the razed shop on social media, boasting about the swift action taken against what he described as “a Muslim migrant scrap dealer.” Rane’s post suggested a communal motive behind the action, as he vowed to expel the family from the district. This raises serious concerns about the weaponisation of state machinery to target marginalised communities under the pretext of maintaining law and order.

Meanwhile, the arrested parents were eventually released on bail, and police have indicated that they will be filing a chargesheet against them. The charges, filed under Sections 196 (promoting enmity between groups), 197 (imputations prejudicial to national integration), and 3(5) (acts with common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, carry a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment.

Implications and the road ahead

The SHRC’s intervention in this case is a critical step towards holding the administration accountable for its actions. The commission’s preliminary observations highlight the dangerous precedent set by demolishing properties as an extrajudicial form of punishment. The incident underscores the increasing use of punitive demolitions against minority communities, a practice that has been widely criticised by human rights groups.

Many have pointed out that the incident reflects broader trends of erosion of due process, where municipal bodies, under pressure from political figures, carry out demolitions to appease majoritarian sentiments. The involvement of a right-wing MLA in publicly celebrating the demolition raises concerns about the fusion of political influence and administrative action in targeting vulnerable communities.

The SHRC’s demand for a fact-finding inquiry, if done without any political influence, will be pivotal in determining accountability in this case. If the commission’s final report confirms procedural lapses, it could set a legal precedent for challenging similar demolitions carried out under questionable circumstances. Additionally, it could serve as a test case for reinforcing the legal requirements surrounding demolition procedures, particularly in cases where communal and political factors appear to be at play.

Related:

A 15-year-old boy “accused”, family shop and home demolished in direct contravention of SC orders?

FIRs for hate speech registered against BJP MLAs Nitesh Rane and Geeta Jain: Maharashtra Police to Bombay High Court

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

The post Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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

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

— Ashraf Hussain (@AshrafFem) February 25, 2025

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

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

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

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

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

The Bulldozer’s fury: demolition controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political fallout and community tensions

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

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

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

The family’s residency: questions and investigations

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

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

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

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Nilesh Rane FC (@nileshranesamarthak)

A town divided: unanswered questions and lingering tensions

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

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

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

Was the demolition legally justified, especially without prior notice?

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

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

Related:

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

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

Minister’s casteist remarks and tribal violence spark fury

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

Details of the present pleas before the Bench:

The judgment emerged from a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, wherein various individuals sought relief against the summary demolition of their properties. The Supreme Court was hearing two urgent applications, moved by the victims of these targeted petitions, along with separate pleas filed by Jamiat and CPI (M) leader Brinda Karat, challenging recent demolition actions by authorities in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. These pleas have been moved by the victims, Rashid Khan from Rajasthan and Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh, whose homes were targeted.

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

The other plea was filed by Mohammad Hussain from Madhya Pradesh who has also alleged that his house and shop were unlawfully bulldozed by the state administration. Both Khan and Hussain’s applications were filed in the context of a case previously submitted by Jamiat Ulama I Hind, which objected to the demolition of Muslim homes in Haryana’s Nuh following communal violence between Hindus and Muslims.

Observations by the Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power of Article 142

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

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

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

Directions issued by the Court

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

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

Petitioners’ contentions

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

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

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

Central issues highlighted in the case

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

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

Arguments raised by the parties

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

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

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

Submissions made by the respondents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete judgment may be read below.

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background of the case

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

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

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

Unclear whether responded filed any reply or not: HC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related:

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

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

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

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