Hearing a petition filed by Khan’s 69-year-old mother, Mehrunissa Shamim Khan, a division bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Raj Wakode observed that the demolition appeared, prima facie, to have been carried out without adhering to binding procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court of India. The civic body has been directed to file a clear response by March 4 stating whether it will reconstruct the structure or offer monetary compensation.

The question posed by the bench was pointed: if due process was not followed, how will the State repair the damage?

The Demolition: Swift action, lasting consequences

Fahim Khan, 38, was arrested following communal violence that broke out on March 17, 2025 in Nagpur’s Mahal area. The unrest followed alleged inflammatory remarks concerning the tomb of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

Within days of Khan’s arrest, the NMC issued notices under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and demolished his three-storey residence in Sanjaybagh Colony on March 25, 2025. Although an urgent plea was moved before the high court and a stay was granted by a bench led by Justice Nitin Sambre, the structure had already been razed by the time the interim protection came into effect.

The demolition left the family without shelter. They have maintained that no meaningful opportunity to respond was provided and that the property had secured necessary permissions as early as 2003, with no objections raised for over two decades.

Khan, who had contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election against Union minister Nitin Gadkari, denies the riot allegations and claims the action was arbitrary. Of the more than 120 persons arrested in the riots case, a majority have since been granted bail or anticipatory bail.

Supreme Court’s anti-demolition safeguards

The high court proceedings turn crucially on a November 13, 2024 judgment of the Supreme Court of India delivered by a bench led by former Chief Justice Bhushan Gavai. In that ruling, the apex court categorically held that demolitions cannot be used as a punitive measure merely because a person is accused in a criminal case.

The Supreme Court mandated:

• Issuance of prior notice,
• A minimum of 15 days to respond,
• Strict adherence to statutory procedure independent of criminal proceedings.

Detailed report may be read here.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the March 21, 2025 notice violated these safeguards and that the demolition amounted to unconstitutional executive overreach.

Notably, during earlier hearings, Nagpur Municipal Commissioner Abhijeet Chaudhari tendered an unconditional apology before the high court, stating that officials were unaware of the Supreme Court’s specific directions governing demolitions in such contexts.

More Than One House: A constitutional test

While the immediate dispute concerns a single property, the implications extend far beyond Sanjaybagh Colony.

The court’s framing of the issue — rebuild or compensate — shifts the discourse from mere procedural lapse to state accountability. If the demolition is ultimately found to have violated Supreme Court guidelines, the remedy may not be limited to declaratory relief. Reconstruction or financial compensation would signal judicial willingness to impose tangible consequences for executive overreach.

The case also reopens the broader national debate around so-called “bulldozer action,” where demolition drives have followed criminal accusations, particularly in communally sensitive contexts. Courts across the country have repeatedly underscored that urban planning enforcement cannot morph into retributive punishment.

At stake are foundational constitutional principles:

• Article 14 — equality before the law and protection against arbitrary state action,
• Article 21 — protection of life and personal liberty, which judicial interpretation has long held to include the right to shelter and dignity,
• The doctrine of due process, which restrains executive discretion.

If municipalities are permitted to demolish properties immediately after arrests without strict procedural compliance, the line between law enforcement and punishment blurs dangerously.

The March 4 hearing will likely determine whether the NMC acknowledges procedural violations and what corrective mechanism it proposes. The court may require compensation, order reconstruction, or lay down further guidelines to ensure compliance with Supreme Court directions.

Whatever the outcome, the case is poised to become a benchmark in assessing the enforceability of anti-bulldozer jurisprudence. A clear order mandating restoration or compensation would reinforce that constitutional safeguards are not advisory — they are binding. Conversely, a weak remedy could dilute the deterrent effect of the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling.

Related:

Hate Crime: Abdul Naeem’s school built with private money on his land demolished by bulldozers in Madhya Pradesh

When the Rule of the Bulldozer Outpaces the Rule of Law: One year after this landmark judgment

From Words to Bulldozers: How a Chief Minister’s rhetoric triggered and normalised punitive policing in Bareilly

“Bulldozer Justice” rebuked: Orissa High Court orders 10 lakh compensation for illegal demolition of community centre

Bulldozer Justice: you can’t just roll in with bulldozers and demolish homes overnight: SC

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

The post Rebuild or Compensate: Nagpur HC confronts NMC over ‘bulldozer’ demolition in riot case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

India was never built on bulldozers. It was built on pluralism, dignity, and equal citizenship.

First, a medical college in Jammu was shut down because Muslim students got admission to MBBS on merit.

Now, a school in Baitul district of Madhya Pradesh has been bulldozed simply because it was built by a Muslim, ON HIS OWN LAND, WITH HIS OWN MONEY, to educate Dalit and Tribal… pic.twitter.com/X65w2Sa1SO

— Gaurav Pandhi (@GauravPandhi) January 15, 2026

Meanwhile the Indian Express  reported that a private school built to educate children from nursery to Class 8 in Madhya Pradesh’s Betul district became the target of a kind of prejudicial politics by the administration when, after rumours falsely branding it as an unauthorised madrasa led to its partial demolition, officials told the newspaper on January 14, Wednesday.

Abdul Naeem, a local resident who had reportedly poured nearly Rs 20 lakh of borrowed money and family savings into the construction, watched portions of his “educational dream” turn to rubble on the evening of January 13 as the dreaded JCB/earthmovers unilaterally brought down the walls and a front shed under administrative orders. No notice, no chance to explain was given to the private owner of the building on private land raising serious questions of the lawfulness or constitutionality of the perverse action.

Reports state that for several years, Naeem had envisioned a nursery-to-Class 8 school for children in Dhaba village and surrounding tribal hamlets, where families often send their children miles away for decent education. He persisted and thereafter secured commercial land diversion, obtained a panchayat NOC, and on December 30 filed his formal application with the School Education Department, submitting all requisite land documents.

“I had decided to construct the school on my private land so that my village can progress and some people can study. Senior officials claimed that we were doing wrong things here,” Naeem said. Even when construction was progressing smoothly when, just three days of viciously circulated rumours led to the brazen action, the demolition. The rumours circulating stated false that a madrasa was being built in the area. Even construction of a Madrasa is in no way a prohibited act!! An anguished Naeem said, “ “This is a village with only three Muslim families. How would a madrasa even function here? And the building wasn’t even complete — no classes, no students,” Naeem said.

Chronology

Last Sunday, January 11, the Gram Panchayat issued a notice ordering Naeem to demolish the structure himself, citing lack of permission. When he rushed to the panchayat office to submit a formal response, he says officials refused to accept his application and told him to return later. Without giving him any opportunity to be heard, two days later, on January 13, as Naeem and a group of concerned villagers travelled to the district collectorate to meet the Collector and seek clarity, the administration moved in. A JCB machine, flanked by heavy police presence, arrived at the site in Dhaba. By dusk, a portion of the school building and the front shed had been razed.

Despite being a public servant answerable to the rule of law and Constitution, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ajit Maravi defended the action, saying it followed a complaint from the gram panchayat alleging encroachment and rule violations. “A verification found that part of the construction fell under encroachment. Only the illegal portion has been removed, not the entire building,” Maravi said, adding that all mandatory permissions had not been obtained. Naeem strongly disputes this. “I had the panchayat NOC. I had applied for school approval. If there was any mistake in paperwork, I was ready to pay whatever fine the government demanded.”

The Video may be seen here

Related:

Sharp spike in hate, minorities the target, hate is new normal: India Hate Lab Report 2025

Rituals of Fear, Politics of Hate: How AHP’s national network rewrote the boundaries of democracy and citizenship

India tops among countries at risk of mass crimes, atrocities, US Holocaust Museum warns

The post Hate Crime: Abdul Naeem’s school built with private money on his land demolished by bulldozers in Madhya Pradesh appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The heightened security followed a violent confrontation during a court-mandated anti-encroachment drive conducted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) on land adjoining the Faiz-e-Ilahi Masjid, located near Ramlila Maidan.

Legal Origins of the Demolition: From survey to High Court direction

The demolition drive was the culmination of a legal process initiated months earlier. One Preet Sirohi had approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of alleged encroachments at the mosque complex. In response, a joint survey was conducted by the MCD, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and the Land & Development Office (L&DO) under the Ministry of Urban Development.

According to the Joint Survey Report (JSR), authorities identified:

• 2,512 square feet of encroachment on a road belonging to the Public Works Department (PWD), and
• 36,428 square feet of MCD land encroached upon for non-religious, commercial uses, including a baraat ghar (wedding hall), parking facilities, and a private diagnostic centre (ThePrint).

Relying on these findings, the Delhi High Court, in its November 12, 2025 order, directed the PWD and the MCD to remove the encroachments. However, the court also directed that the mosque management committee must be granted a hearing before any coercive action was taken. This order formed the legal foundation for all subsequent administrative and enforcement actions. (The Times of India)

Administrative hearings and the MCD’s December 22 order

In compliance with the court’s direction, the MCD held two hearings on November 24 and December 16, attended by representatives of the mosque management committee, DDA officials, and L&DO officers (The Indian Express).

During these proceedings:

• Hafiz Matloob Karim, general secretary of the mosque committee, denied the existence of a wedding hall, stating instead that a vacant portion of the premises was used “occasionally” for marriage functions.
• the mosque predated Independence;
• it was adjoined by a graveyard with no clear demarcation;
• He submitted that a charitable clinic was being run for the needy at marginal charges.
• The committee asserted that the mosque was a “waqf by user” property, arguing that no title deed was required under waqf law.

A representative of the Delhi Waqf Board referred to a February 1940 agreement under which 0.195 acres of land had been leased to the mosque.

In its order dated December 22, the MCD rejected these submissions, stating that:

• No documentary evidence had been placed on record to establish lawful possession or ownership of the land beyond the 0.195 acres the mosque management committee, or the Delhi Waqf Boar;
• Religious structures such as a masjid, dargah, or graveyard could not be used for commercial activities like marriage functions or diagnostic services;
• Any structure beyond the 0.195-acre tract constituted encroachment and misuse of public land.

The order explicitly held that such use was a “blatant misuse of public land” and directed removal of all structures beyond the demarcated area (Hindustan Times).

Mosque committee moves the High Court again

Challenging the MCD’s decision, the mosque management committee filed a fresh writ petition before the Delhi High Court, seeking to set aside the December 22 order. The petition emphasised that:

• The mosque predated Independence;
• It was adjoined by a graveyard with no clear demarcation;
• the wedding hall and diagnostic centre had already ceased operations;
• The committee had no objection to removal of commercial encroachments but sought protection for the graveyard. (The Hindu)

On Tuesday (January 6), a day before the demolition, Justice Amit Bansal heard the plea. The court recorded that the petitioner’s counsel stated there was no grievance regarding removal of the wedding hall or diagnostic centre, both of which had ceased operations.

The judge also noted:

• The MCD’s assurance that no action was proposed on the 0.195 acres containing the mosque and graveyard;
• The absence of any argument that the graveyard extended beyond this leased land.

While issuing notices to the MCD, DDA, and other authorities and seeking counter-affidavits within four weeks, the court declined to grant an interim stay, clarifying that any action taken would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition (ThePrint).

The Demolition Begins Before Dawn

Although the demolition was scheduled to begin at 8 am on January 7, MCD teams arrived at the site around 1 am, accompanied by extensive police deployment. According to police officials cited by PTI and ANI, nearly 30 bulldozers and 50 dump trucks were mobilised. Heavy police deployment, including riot-control units, were present for the operation.

The Clash: What happened between 12:40 am and 1:30 am

At approximately 12:40 am, shortly after the MCD teams and police reached the area, a crowd gathered near the police barricades at Turkman Gate. Despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — which restricts unlawful assembly — the group allegedly refused to disperse.

According to the FIR lodged at Chandni Mahal Police Station, based on a complaint by Constable Sandeep:

• Around 30–35 people raised slogans against the police administration;
• Several individuals attempted to breach barricades;
• Repeated announcements were made through a loud-hailer directing the crowd to disperse;
• The crowd refused to comply, attempted to break barricades, and began pelting stones;
• One individual allegedly snatched and damaged a police loud-hailer.

The FIR, which contains the version of the police, further states that five police personnel, including the Station House Officer (SHO), sustained injuries during the clash. The injured officers — including Head Constable Jal Singh and Constable Vikram — were taken to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital, treated, and later discharged (ThePrint, The Hindu).

Police Response: Tear gas and crowd dispersal

Senior police officers told ThePrint that tear gas shells were fired from one side of the mosque complex where stone-pelting was concentrated. The crowd was dispersed within about 30 minutes, after which the demolition commenced around 1:30 am.

Joint Commissioner of Police Madhur Verma stated that minimal force was used and that normalcy was restored shortly thereafter (ANI).

Arrests, FIR sections, and ongoing investigation

Police detained five individuals, including a juvenile. Four adults — Mohd Arib (25), Mohd Kaif (23), Mohd Kashif (25), and Mohd Hamid (30) — were arrested, while a 17-year-old was apprehended (PTI, The Hindu). Additionally, 10–15 individuals were detained for questioning (PTI).

The FIR invokes multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including:

• Section 221 (obstructing a public servant),
• Section 132 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant),
• Section 121 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant),
• Section 191 (rioting),
• Section 223(A) (disobedience of a lawful order),
• Section 3(5) (joint liability), along with provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.

Police said CCTV footage, body-worn camera recordings, and social media videos are being examined to identify additional suspects and possible instigators (ANI).

Conflicting Accounts: Locals vs police

Members of the local Aman Committee insisted that residents had cooperated with authorities. Mohammed Shehzad, a committee member, told ThePrint that nearly 150–200 locals had met police and MCD officials in advance, assuring cooperation. “It must have been outsiders,” Shehzad said, arguing that residents would not risk administrative backlash.

However, the FIR contradicts this narrative. Constable Sandeep stated that he recognised at least five local residents among those involved in the violence and claimed he could identify more if produced before him (ThePrint).

Political and public reactions

The incident triggered political reactions across party lines. Congress leader Salman Khurshid said the situation “could have been handled differently” but added that since the court had found the action valid, “nothing else can be said” (ANI).

The BJP accused opposition leaders of justifying violence. Party spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla criticised remarks by Samajwadi Party leaders who described the stone-pelting as an “action-reaction” (PTI).

Delhi Home Minister Ashish Sood stated that the mosque was untouched and the action was strictly in accordance with court orders (ANI).

Meanwhile, Samajwadi Party MP Mohibbullah Nadvi, who was present in the area prior to the violence, is under investigation. Police said he left before the demolition began but will be summoned to join the probe (ANI).

The larger context and present status

The Faiz-e-Ilahi Masjid had previously drawn attention after CCTV footage showed Dr Umar un-Nabi, accused of being involved in the Red Fort suicide bombing on November 10, 2025, offering prayers there hours before the attack. Authorities, however, have consistently stated that the demolition drive was entirely unrelated to that incident (ThePrint).

As of now:

• The mosque and graveyard remain intact;
• The commercial structures have been demolished;
• Five arrests have been made;
• The High Court has sought replies from authorities, with the matter listed for further hearing in April.

Delhi Police and the MCD maintain that the action was lawful, proportionate, and undertaken strictly under judicial directions, while urging the public not to be misled by misinformation circulating online. Police sources stated that social media posts falsely claiming the mosque itself was being demolished circulated shortly before the violence; and that these posts contributed to people gathering at the site (The Hindu, PTI).

Related:

Cataloguing Communalism: What does the year-long record of hate, violence, and state failure in coastal Karnataka depict

Racist, casteist and communal, when will we as Indians reclaim that lost charade of constitutional decency?

Hate & Intimidation: Teach Bangladesh a lesson akin to what Israel taught Gaza, says BJP Bengal leader Suvendu Adhikari

When the Rule of the Bulldozer Outpaces the Rule of Law: One year after this landmark judgment

Free Speech in India 2025: What the Free Speech Collective report reveals about a year of silencing

The post Faiz-e-Ilahi Masjid, Turkman Gate: A court-ordered demolition, midnight policing, stone-pelting, arrests, and the ongoing legal battle appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The judgment did not come out of thin air. It followed months if not years of ‘instant justice’ enabled by bulldozers, in well-publicized incidents as far back as 2021 in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Delhi, and Haryana, almost always following communal incidents or protests. Many, most obviously in the named jurisdictions, were occurring at night, without rehabilitation, and impacted Muslim, Dalit, and migrant communities disproportionately.

A year has passed. The question to ask is whether these guidelines changed state practice, or whether bulldozers continued to operate in ways that undermined the rule of law – often ways that reinforced reports that we, at CJP and Sabrang India have already documented.

The Judgment that Promised a Reversal

When it rendered its decision in November 2024, the Supreme Court intended to firmly ground demolition practices within constitutional limits. The Bench reiterated that demolitions cannot occur without a statutory basis and must abide by the basic tenets of due process: individuals should be given a notice tailored specifically to them, an opportunity to respond promptly to the notice, a hearing at which to be heard in a meaningful way, and a speaking order evidencing the administrative rationale.

It also spoke to the absurdity of dealing with rehabilitation as an afterthought, especially when it involves vulnerable communities. While some of these principles had stalked Indian law before the decision, the judgment unified them all in one framework during a time when bulldozer-led punitive state action was becoming more commonplace. It indicated we would be seeing efforts to recalibrate the conduct of state institutions in the following year, while signalling to us that we should expect greater adherence to procedural safeguards.

A Year on the Ground: Patterns of Demolition Post the Gavai-Viswanathan verdict

Although in November 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated that demolition cannot take place without notice, a hearing, or rehabilitation, the next twelve months were characterised by a number of drives across states which showed a decidedly different reality on the ground: Demolitions were limited by varying degrees in reliance of this judgement and occurred in urban renewal, and post-arson and riot punitive acts, as reflected in CJP’s and Sabrang India’s reporting, the list below illustrates how state practice was inconsistent, replicating the very failure of procedures the Court had attempted to rectify.

• March 2025

Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh

A key legal development in the aftermath of the judgment occurred in Prayagraj when the Supreme Court awarded ₹10 lakh in compensation each to six residents whose homes were demolished without due process. As reported by Sabrang India in “Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions…”, the Supreme Court found that the Prayagraj Development Authority did not adhere to the statutory due process when demolishing the homes, thus confirming the long-held position of the demolished families. While the Supreme Court’s intervention was valuable, it occurred years after the demolitions happened, indicating a trend where judicial relief is only provided after the damage has already been done.

• May 2025

Madrasi Camp, Delhi

In Delhi, the demolition of Madrasi Camp in Jangpura has once again raised questions about whether the municipality is conforming to the Supreme Court’s guidelines. As Sabrang India’s article, “Madrasi Camp demolition: CPIM Delhi demands halt…” states, residents asserted that they did not receive a substantial notice and were neither promised nor consulted about rehabilitation. The demolition was carried out with a significant police force present, raising apprehensions that evictions continued in the capital even after the verdict, without full compliance with procedural requirements.

• April – May 2025 

Chandola Lake, Ahmedabad

Ahmedabad’s anti-encroachment drive around Chandola Lake was one of the biggest demolitions in the post-judgment year. In Sabrang India’s coverage of the same event (“Gujarat HC refuses stay…”), it noted that the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was clearing structures that were predominantly occupied by Muslim residents, under the Gujarat High Court judgment, as it pertained to reclaiming the lake. Though the recourse to the Gujarat High Court challenged the practice, it did not specifically cease the demolition of the houses, nor addressed the rehabilitation of families or just a simple notice.

• March – April 2025 

Nagpur, Maharashtra

The destruction of Fahim Khan’s home in Nagpur highlighted anxieties over punitive administrative action; residents of Nagpur argued that the short notice period of 24 hours did not provide adequate due process. Sabrang India’s report, “Demolition of Fahim Khan’s home…” noted the demolition was significant in the local political climate and raised even more questions over the motive and process in a post-judgement political landscape.

• January 2025 

Dwarka District Islands, Gujarat

In the Dwarka district, clearance operations ordered by the administration after floods impacted fishing communities and places of religious worship. As Sabrang India reported, houses, community shelters, and several mazars and a dargah were demolished. Residents reported that all notices received came too late to counter the action adequately, which instead made it one of the most significant coastal demolitions this year.

• November 2025 

Gurugram, Haryana

In Haryana, the demolition of a longstanding Dalit settlement located on Old Delhi Road exemplified how marginalized communities are still subjected to abrupt unilateral administrative action after the Supreme Court’s ruling. Residents argued that they had not been given the promises regarding rehabilitation, and that they were not given sufficient opportunity to contest the eviction.

• May 2025 

Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh

In Ujjain, the Ujjain Development Authority initiated a demolition campaign along Mahakal Road. Despite official claims that a notice had been issued months ahead of time, residents affected by the demolition vehemently disputed the timing and sufficiency of the notice. Although the High Court had engaged in surveillance of certain aspects of the proceedings, details of the operation also highlighted the disparity of attention to due process in these matters throughout the state.

• Other States Across 2025 

In addition to these key events, there were many additional demolitions, albeit smaller in scale, that further complicated the patterns of uneven compliance with the judgement safeguards. In Delhi, several slum clusters in Mangolpuri, Seemapuri, and near the Yamuna floodplains were partially demolished from June to September 2025. Residents in these areas contended that municipalities referenced notes in affidavits that had never been served individually to residents. Additionally, in UP, families were told that demolitions after flooding in Prayagraj and Varanasi were justified as “emergency measures.” Families maintained that, especially in Prayagraj, there appeared to be selective enforcement and confusion about categorizing the land as within the floodplain or “vacant.” In Kashmir, demolitions after counter-insurgency operations in the Pulwama region. Although families claimed there were no formal charges against them, the demolitions left families without a home, which drew civil liberties objections. Finally, in Punjab, demolitions associated with NDPS-related investigations were conducted, which resulted in a troubling blurring of the lines between crime-control and punitive administrative action. This suggests that bulldozer governance had begun to arrive in new legal categories, disjointed from purely communal-based incidents.

Cumulatively, these expanded incidents along this timeline show that although some agencies claimed procedural compliance, the reality in most cases still demonstrated the same post-incident demolitions, disputed notices, crude procedure, and inadequate rehabilitation, all features that were squarely inconsistent with the principles reaffirmed in the judgment.

Due Process and Rule of Law: What the Year Revealed

The demolitions conducted across states during the year following the judgment demonstrate how the gap between constitutional protections and public administration remains intact. The Supreme Court upheld the paramount importance of notice, hearing, and rehabilitation, yet in most reported drives the involuntary responses relied on notices that were either insufficiently raised, or disputed, sometimes delivered to affected households on the night before demolition or after machinery had arrived.

Hearings were virtually absent, and affected families were united in reporting that they were not afforded any opportunity to present a defence to an allegation of encroachment or illegality. Rehabilitation – outlined specifically by the Court for vulnerable groups – was rarely planned, and never actualized. The judicial responses, when they occurred, were often post-facto rather than pro-facto: the most direct orders, such as the imposition of the Supreme Court’s admonition of the Prayagraj demolitions, and the Orissa High Court ruling on the Cuttack community centre, came months, if not years, after the demolition. The High Court made efforts to call for affidavits or provide interim stays on demolitions, but without a method of enforcement, these steps amounted to little more than symbolic acknowledgment of demolition abuses. The judiciary did not have a mechanism for monitoring the demolitions or following up on the assurances to protect vulnerable families. In the absence of enforcement and in the absence of a court interceding pro-facto, routine use of bulldozing remains an option for administrative attention.

All of the incidents throughout the year show that while the courts have provided clarity of law, process continues to be treated by executive branch actors as a process of ritual and not of constitutional obligation that depends on and can range from excesses of the political or administrative context of where a demolition occurs to focusing on the time and nature of the demolition process, such as while in progress, an act undertaken to restore public order through law enforcement, through ordinary adjustments, including diminished due process for the loved ones of the deceased.

Judicial vs Executive Approaches: A Deepening Divide

In the year following Gavai, we saw an increasingly divergent distance between judicial statements of due-process standards and the executive branches’ practices of adhering to those standards. Courts certainly exhibited, especially in a few notable cases, a willingness to hold state actors accountable: Justice Abhay Oka’s Supreme Court Bench, for example, not only condemned Prayagraj’s unlawful demolitions, but also awarded damages and called for an inquiry to hold the officials accountable. Further still, the Orissa High Court ordered to recovery from the former officer in the Cuttack community-centre case. What emerged among a few courts was the express judicial acknowledgment that demolitions without notice and hearing were not simply “administrative” violations, but constitutional violations. Courts, however, did go so far as to issue contempt notices, such as was seen in the proceedings following the demolitions of the Goalpara community centre, in Maharashtra, and in Delhi, indicating that litigants and judges were considering the guidelines proposed in the judgement, as enforceable obligations. Exceptionally, of course, given how rarely an executive agency is sanctioned for non-adherence to due-process protections.

For most of the demolitions and drives in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, and parts of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, no disciplinary investigations, prosecutions, or public censures were found. In a few cases, officers were transferred soon after a disputed demolition, but these were simply transferred and not punitive. Even when courts demanded accounts from officials or demanded affidavits, the lapses began to fade into the mass of administrative inertia without consistency or follow-up. The unpredictable but frequent comparisons between the court’s occasional harsh language and the executive branch’s nearly total impunity show the central tension of the post-Gavai year: the words could be said and stated clearly from the Bench, but they could easily be replaced by immediate political, policing, or developmental goals on the ground without a structural mechanism to enforce them.

Constitutional Lens: Articles 14, 21, and 300A

The demolitions conducted across states in the post-judgement timeframe repeatedly placed strain on the constitutional protections outlined in Articles 14, 21, and 300A. Article 14 had more visible effects, where enforcement patterns appeared uneven with bulldozers appearing fastest in Muslim-majority bastis, Dalit settlements, migrant clusters, and other communities with precarious housing. The patterns of the law, particularly the selective invocation of laws regarding encroachment, often within hours of community violence, politicians, and other events, suggested that the police powers were used in a discriminatory manner, informed less by planning considerations and more by the social makeup of neighbourhoods.

Article 21, which underpins the right to life and dignity, is equally undermined. Eviction of temporary structures without any notice does more than involve the destruction of premises; it obliterates the social architecture of family life—livelihoods, safety, and considerations of community. Reporting in The Indian Express of demolitions in Nagpur, Ujjain, Prayagraj, and Delhi were made in consideration of families rendered homeless overnight, with a complete lack of accommodation, with implications for precarious living conditions and a vulnerability to other harms, and dispossession, especially without provision for hearing or rehabilitation in cases of demolition, implicitly indicates a constitutional injury.

Article 300A of the Gavai judgment was arguably the most consistently breached. While state authorities cited legislative authority for demolition, the lack of a fair process, advance notice, and transparent decision-making weakened the “authority of law” mandated by the Constitution. The year’s data suggest that, notwithstanding a robust judicial restatement, the constitutional principles that seek to constrain state authority remain tenuous in the face of administrative urgency or political pressure.

When Landmark Judgments Remain Symbolic

The post-judgement reality reflects a larger trend in a defraying Indian constitutionalism, where even the most impactful judgments risk being reduced to mere symbols. The doctrine implemented in D.K. Basu did not stop custodial torture; Tehseen Poonawalla did not stop lynching; Shreya Singhal did not stop the ongoing usage of Section 66A years after its invalidation. Likewise, the decision, which celebrated the re-centering of due process in demolition practice, has not transformed the habitual behaviour of entrenched administratively.

One reason for this is structural: Indian courts, as a general rule, only intervene when something is brought before them, typically well after demolitions have occurred. As a number of petitions noted by LiveLaw in 2025 highlight, families only arrive in court because their homes are gone – effectively turning the judiciary into an after-the-fact remedial body instead of a preventative one. High Courts occasionally interject with some stern words, but even orders with some public interest stay orders only deal with the facts and circumstances of the individual case.

The political context is also important. In electoral and police discourse, bulldozers have gained a symbolic meaning, viewed as a form of “decisive/aggressive governance” against a select section, India’s marginalized, especially Dalits, Adivasis and the Muslim minority. This symbolism lessens the normative weight of judicial reasoning, giving officers the belief that constitutions are secondary to political mobility. In this context, even a decisive and pathbreaking judgment is susceptible to becoming a citation rather than a restraint.

What Will It Take to Replace the Rule of Bulldozer with the Rule of Law?

A significant transition from bulldozer-led governance to rule-of-law-based governance necessitates more than occasional judicial reprimands. It requires institutional mechanisms that facilitate the provision of procedural safeguards before building demolitions occurring, not after the fact. Mandatory reporting protocols, both before demolitions and immediately following demolitions, that include documentation of public notices, hearings, and rehabilitation plans would create a minimal record of accountability. The reports could be subject to audits by judicially appointed committees or independent agencies.

Courts may also be able to use some form of structured monitoring (as exists in certain environmental and prison-reform litigation) of the state parties in future cases. The state government could make periodic affidavits of compliance, with the threat of civil contempt for systemic non-compliance, and the high courts do registry tracking of demolition cases and violations of the judgement framework by the agency.

Furthermore, executive accountability should reach beyond symbolic shifts of power to committees that was entirely outside of the executive altogether; the state approximate automatic inquiries into demolitions that lack documented due process, the recorded public findings, along with other penalties, serve as deterrents. States may also want to consider codifying the norms in Statutes or regulations, or using agency policies, making these administrative actions defined offences for non-compliance. It is also necessary that rehabilitation be planned and adequately funded. Due process will only be administratively seen as part of the professional duty when officers are routinely and predictably held accountable for the compliant or non-compliant forms of their practice.

A Strong Judgment met With Structural Impunity

The judgment in November 2024 reiterated the core constitutional guarantees: no demolition without prior notice, an opportunity for a hearing and a fair process. It was a principled and timely expression of limits on the powers of the state, especially in the moment when bulldozers had been commonly adopted as some form of immediate administrative response. Yet the following year will demonstrate how even strong jurisprudence may wither away in a context of systemic impunity.

Policies of demolition continued across the states, with at times uneven practices or minimal respect for due process. In a great number of cases, the courts provided relief only after homes had been demolished or schools were turned into rubble. What usually accompanied these rulings were strong observations from the Supreme Court and some High Courts, and an order of compensation, but those decisions were usually either limited in nature or retrospective. State agencies suffered virtually no immediate consequences for their actions, and without institutions capable of monitoring enforcement, the guidelines remained aspirational.

The judgement also highlights the growing disconnect between constitutional principles and everyday executive decision-making. Without continued monitoring, transparent accountability, and meaningful legislative frameworks, a robust ruling cannot control entrenched bureaucratic practices. The promise we have enshrined in the Constitution is hanging in doubt so long as the bulldozer can demolish traditional patterns of adherence to due process.

The judgment may be read below –

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Preksha Bothara)

Related: 

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

‘An eye for an eye’- new law of the land for the Muslim minorities in India?

Muslims in the new India: How one week showcases their escalating persecution

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

The post When the Rule of the Bulldozer Outpaces the Rule of Law: One year after this landmark judgment appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.