Addressing a press conference here on Wednesday, the Delhi state CPI(M) said the poor families were evicted despite showing valid documents.

Reminding BJP of its promise of “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahaan Makaan”, the CPI(M) demanded rehabilitation in situ, or within a 5 km radius, to ensure continued access to livelihoods, education, essential services and community.

“Construction of flats on nearby vacant DDA land should be undertaken, if no appropriate housing is available, to comply with protocols and legal obligation,” it said in a statement.

The party also called for a fair and transparent survey and appeals process, “ensuring that long-term residents—many of whom have lived in the camp for over 60 years—are not wrongfully excluded.”

Read the full press release below:

*BJP GOVT MUST FULFIL THEIR PROMISE OF ‘JAHAN JHUGGI WAHAN MAKAAN’

CPI(M) Delhi State Committee strongly condemns the inhumane demolition and forced eviction threat facing over 400 working-class families in Madrasi Camp, Jangpura-B — one of Delhi’s oldest recognised bastis. This 60-year-old jhuggi cluster near the Barapulla Drain of South East Delhi is part of the DUSIB’s notified slums list and eligible for legal protection as per the NCT of Delhi Special Provisions Act, 2011.

Despite possessing valid documentation, one-third of households have been arbitrarily denied rehabilitation, while those deemed “eligible” are being cast out to Narela—50 km away—in clear violation of all protocols. Government agencies are simultaneously pushing for demolition of the jhuggi cluster even as the rehabilitation process remains ongoing, an action that is both illegal and indefensible.

The Act clearly states that “Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis which have come up before 01.01.2006 shall not be removed (as per National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011) without providing them alternate housing. Jhuggis which have come up in such Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis before 01.01.2015 shall not be demolished without providing alternate housing.”

The Para 2(a)(iii) of the Delhi Slum & Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015 underlines: “In-situ rehabilitation – Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board shall provide alternate accommodation to those living in Jhuggi Jhopri Bastis, either on the same land or in the vicinity within a radius of five kilometers. In case of exceptional circumstances, it can even go beyond five kilometers with prior approval of the Board.

Dispossession of the Poor in the Guise of Drain Cleaning

Upon the directions of the High Court (W.P. (C) 8035/2024) in July 2024, the DDA with other government departments, incorrectly identified Madrasi Camp as an encroachment along the drain flowing into Yamuna. Following this, the issue of eviction and rehabilitation is being considered in Court. The classification of the settlement as an encroachment is an executive decision—not a judicial directive. On October 5, 2024 the Irrigation and Flood Control Department hurriedly submitted a map indicating the Madrasi Camp obstructs the flow of the Barapullah drain. However, an independent fact-finding report by senior engineer experts from IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay has identified the nearby bridges and flyover as the primary cause of drainage obstruction, not the settlement.

Jumla of BJP’s Electoral Promises 

A 2024 Housing and Land Rights Network report reveals that Delhi led India in evictions during 2022–23, with 78 clearance operations displacing roughly 278,796 people. This stark reality lays bare the hypocrisy of the previous LG-led administration and the current “triple engine sarkar” in Delhi, which campaigned on promises to protect slum dwellers. The BJP’s promises—most notably “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahaan Makaan”—now ring hollow as families face forced eviction without appropriate rehabilitation. Unless the Delhi and Central government immediately directs its agencies to halt demolitions and deliver on in situ rehabilitation, its flagship slogan will be remembered as a cruelpolitical gimmick.

Violation of Due Process & Rights

The residents of Madrasi Camp are citizens, not encroachers, as repeatedly claimed by the government and their lawyers. They vote, work, raise families, and contribute to society. Subjecting them to repeated humiliation—treating them as illegals—violates their constitutional rights. Even as the courts are deliberating on the case, the PWD and Delhi Police are issuing demolition notices in absolute disregard for protocols.

The Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy of 2015 underlines under clause D(5) DUSIB will fix the date of removal of the said JJ basti and send an appropriate intimation to the local police authorities for providing security and maintaining law and order. No police will be provided to any agency in Delhi for removal of JJ bastis without the approval/letter from CEO, DUSIB.

Proper Rehabilitation Must Precede Eviction

We strongly oppose any demolition, forced eviction or relocation to Narela, which lies nearly 50 km away from their current settlement. Such a move would severely disrupt their livelihoods, cut off access to essential services like schools and healthcare, and push families further into economic hardship.

CPI(M) Delhi Demands:

1. Immediate halt to all evictions and demolitions until every resident’s appeal is fairly heard and resolved.

2. Rehabilitation in-situ, or within a 5 km radius, per the ‘Jahan Jhuggi, Wahaan Makaan’ promise and government policies, to ensure continued access to livelihoods, education, essential services and community. Construction of flats on nearby vacant DDA land should be undertaken, if no appropriate housing is available, to comply with protocols and legal obligation.

3. Preservation of livelihoods and access to essential services by avoiding displacement to distant and disconnected areas like Narela.

4. A fair and transparent survey and appeals process, ensuring that long-term residents—many of whom have lived in the camp for over 60 years—are not wrongfully excluded. Initiation of direct social dialogue with residents, ensuring meaningful participation in the rehabilitation process.

5. An end to the scapegoating of working-class communities for flooding, when evidence points to flawed infrastructure as the actual cause. The government must also allow independent scientific studies to be conducted instead of blaming the poor for its failures to control and manage floods.

The bulldozer will not decide who belongs in Delhi.

The NGT’s 2019 order to clear unauthorised structures across the Yamuna floodplain or drains has been exploited by the BJP-led central government to displace working class bastis—treating longstanding communities as ‘encroachments’ and triggering largescale evictions without proper rehabilitation. Under the guise of “riverfront revitalization” and “beautification drives”, land is being cleared for 24×7 entertainment complexes and commercial developments that serve corporate interests, not public welfare.

CPI(M) condemns this grotesque inversion of environmentalism, where the rights of the working class are sacrificed to fuel real estate profits.

The CPI(M) is a working-class party dedicated to defending the rights of labourers, informal workers, and marginalised communities—whose toil sustains this city. In coalition with other Left parties and democratic organisations, we will mount a broad-based struggle against the DDA’s bulldozer politics and the BJP-led governments that treat human lives as expendable obstacles to their pro-corporate and anti-people development agenda. We stand in unbreakable solidarity with the residents of Madrasi Camp and the lakhs of marginalised families facing dispossession. The bulldozer will not decide who belongs in Delhi.

Anurag Saxena,

State Secretary, CPI(M) Delhi

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Madrasi Camp Demolition: CPI(M) Delhi Demands Halt to Evictions, Rehab Within 5 Km appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Petition filed by accused’s wife against demolition notice

The Court was hearing a petition titled Husan Begum v State of Uttarakhand, [WPCRL/419/2025], filed by the accused’s wife, Husan Begum. She challenged a three-day demolition notice issued by the local municipal body for their family home, where she stated they have been residing for over 20 years without ever receiving any encroachment notice prior to this.

Her plea also raised alarm over ongoing communal violence and threats to her family, citing the urgency of police protection in the volatile atmosphere. She argued that the short notice period made it impossible to respond, especially since all documentation related to the house was managed by her husband, who is currently in custody.

HC flags violation of Supreme Court orders on demolitions

The High Court expressed grave concern over the issuance of the demolition notice, deeming it a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s directives aimed at preventing unlawful demolitions of properties belonging to accused individuals. Citing a landmark ruling from November 2024, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that no demolition should occur without a prior show cause notice—returnable either as per local laws or within 15 days, whichever is later.

The High Court sternly warned, “We are issuing contempt and we are taking it up seriously. You cannot violate the Supreme Court order. It was not passed eons ago… The Supreme Court has been very clear: if you want to demolish a house, what is the procedure…” as Bar and Bench reported

[BREAKING] “Incompetent”: Uttarakhand High Court slams police for communal violence in Nainital after rape of minor; pulls up municipal body for bid to demolish house of accusedhttps://t.co/4c1UDtxEmL

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2025

Administrative failure and police incompetence in maintaining law & order

The Bench criticised the district administration and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) PS Meena for failing to prevent mob attacks and vandalism in the market area housing Usman’s office. The judges noted with concern the destruction of property—including that of unrelated individuals like a woman named Bimla Devi—and questioned the police’s apparent inability to contain the situation, Bar and Bench reported.

“Your incompetence leads to all these problems and you want to cover it up. Shops belonging to everybody… some Bimla Devi, why was her shop ransacked?” the Court asked pointedly, emphasising the systemic failure of the law enforcement apparatus, as reported

Demolition amidst mob violence: legal and ethical violations

According to Live Law, taking oral note of the “disturbing” series of events, the Bench lambasted the municipal council for flouting Supreme Court orders. “Tell us why we should not initiate suo moto contempt against you?…The Supreme Court has considered all these kinds of issues, especially in this background and you all go on a rampage like this, what is this?… We will take up contempt seriously,” the Court remarked.

The municipal body’s counsel responded by tendering an unconditional apology and assured the Court that the demolition notice would be withdrawn. “Immediately, all the notices will be withdrawn. We can only proceed as per the Supreme Court’s order,” the counsel submitted.

Communal violence following rape allegation against 76-years-old Muslim man

Sabrang India reports that communal violence erupted on May 1, a day after the police registered a complaint alleging the rape of a 12-year-old girl by Muhammad Usman. Right-wing protesters took to the streets demanding swift action, which soon escalated into targeted attacks and destruction of property in Nainital. The accused’s wife subsequently approached the Court not only to challenge the demolition notice but also to seek police protection amidst threats to her family.

The Court was also informed of an altercation that occurred when the accused was produced before the trial court, during which his lawyer faced interference. The judges were quick to condemn the incident. “How can lawyers prevent anybody from representing anyone…” They added that the entire situation was avoidable had the police exercised due vigilance, and inquired, “What action have you taken against arsonists?”

Administration urged to remain unemotional, act lawfully

The Bench made an indirect reference to the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir, particularly citing the dignity and restraint shown by Himanshi Narwal, wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal. She had publicly rejected hatred against Muslims and Kashmiris, calling only for peace.

Quoting her implicitly, the Court remarked, “Can somebody access the Times Of India… that wife of that slain Navy officer, please read her statement… please read that statement… The Naval officer, who was killed… See public may get emotional, can the administration get emotional?” as per Live Law report.

The Court advised the government counsel not to get swayed by emotion but to act strictly in accordance with law, reinforcing the principle that legal procedures cannot be abandoned under the pressure of public outrage.

Advocate Dr. Kartikeya Hari Gupta appeared for the petitioner, Husan Begum. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 6. The Court reiterated that the actions of the authorities would continue to be scrutinized, especially in light of Supreme Court precedent and the ongoing threat to the rule of law posed by emotionally driven administrative decisions.

Related:

Nainital on communal edge after 75-year-old Muslim man booked for alleged rape of minor girl

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

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

The post Uttarakhand High Court slams police and authority for failure in maintain law and order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Homes Destroyed, Mass Detentions Following Pahalgam Attack 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.

Constructions such as 250 residences, one dargah, and nine mazars have been demolished. As per the Dwarka Superintendent of Police Nitesh Pandey, the structures were majorly “religious” or “commercial”, as reported by the Indian Express. More than seven islands of the Dwarka district have been freed from the illegal encroachments as part of the ongoing demolition drive in Dwarka. 

The Home Minister of Gujarat, Harsh Sanghvi shared a post on X, announcing the success of the demolition drive. He also shared aerial footage sharing the post demolition status of the cleared lands on the 7 islands that are 100% free from encroachments. He appreciated the coordinated efforts of the administration and the law enforcement authorities in the demolition drive by stating that “The historic bulldozer operation in Devbhumi Dwarka has yielded significant results.”

Targeting of minorities under pretext of removing illegal encroachments

While the demolition drive has proceeded peacefully, there have been concerns that have been raised that the Muslim minority of the region have been targeted unfairly and that the removal of encroachments has not followed the due procedure of law. The Gujarat Minority Coordination Committee wrote a letter to the chief minister Bhupendra Patel, requesting him to stop the “discrimination against the community.” The letter signed by Mujahid Nafees, convener of the Minority Coordination Committee also stated that “there should be no discrimination between Hindus and Muslims in the clearing of encroachments.”

The above allegations have been denied by the Superintendent of Police of Jamnagar, Premsukh Delu, stating that the Pirotan island is very sensitive due to its location. He claimed that “From a national security perspective, this island is critical due to its proximity to the international waters. Production facilities of Reliance Industries, Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited and Nayara Energy are located in Jamnagar, besides air force and navy base stations.” He further added that “There are concerns of narcotics landing here from international waters,” as reported by India Today.

Flouting of Supreme Court guidelines regarding issuance of notice before demolition

Local authorities have emphasized that proper and timely notices were issued before the demolition of the unauthorized constructions was carried out. They have claimed that legal action was only initiated after the expiration of the deadlines. 

While the authorities have claimed that the demolition drive has been conducted as per rules and regulations, the locals have contended that the first notice was issued to them on January 3, and the second notice was issued on January 7 for furnishing documents of their properties. Public hearings were conducted on January 8 and 9, and the demolitions began on January 10. They have argued that the given time is very little for people inhabiting these properties for furnishing their documents and presenting their case. 

It must be noted that, in 2022, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines with regards to demolition of structures, whereby the Court mandated that no demolition must be carried out without a service of notice, and within time provided by the local municipal laws or a period of 15 days from the date of the service of the said notice. A bench headed by Justices BR Gavai and KV Vishwanathan also said that “If the executive takes the role of a judge and orders demolition of a house without following the process of law, it is violative of the rule of law. The state cannot take arbitrary action against the accused or convict without following the due process of law.”

It can be seen here the local authorities have demolished the encroachments without providing proper notice and time for the people to present their case and challenge the demolition or to manage their affairs before the demolition is to take place.

Displaced locals left in distress

While the authorities have claimed that proper notices were issued, multiple locals have stated that they received little to no warning before the demolition took place. People were seen in distress as their homes were being destroyed while they desperately attempted to salvage their belongings.

Multiple critics have also claimed that the real motive behind the demolition drive in Dwarka, Gujarat seems like an attempt to clear out the Muslim community under the garb of environment protection. While the Government has made claims to provide compensation for the displaced families, many locals feel uncertain about their future, as reported by Kashmir Media Service News.

The Social Democratic Party of India has also commended the demolition drive and stated that “no need to say that Muslim places of worship and Muslim monuments are inevitably the target.”  

Demolition drive in Dwarka: Part of a larger scale demolitions across Gujarat

In a series of similar actions that started in October, 2022, the demolition drive in Dwarka, Gujarat is the latest. Illegal residences, 9 mosques and shrines in the coastal areas surrounding the Gir Somnath temple in late 2020. In Junagarh, a dargah and a temple encroaching on the government land were demolished in March, 2024. Similar drives followed in Kutch and Porbandar to allegedly free coastal areas of illegal structures and allow the police to regulate unauthorized movement in the region for national security and recent increase in the narcotics trade.

The increase in the frequency of such demolition drives and their supposedly accidental target towards the minority Muslim population raises serious concerns regarding the true intention behind such drives and if they really are for protecting national security and national interests. While the authorities have claimed that the removal of encroachments in Dwarka has been via due process of law, the locals seem to not have been given proper opportunity to present their case and there has been no action on behalf of the Government to rehabilitate or compensate the displaced families and people. These arbitrary actions seriously violate the human rights of the people.

Related:

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

Spewing hate, slurring Muslims: an unchecked decade-long diatribe by Bharatiya Janata Party?

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

The post Dwarka: Clearance of encroachments leaves locals hopeless and in anguish appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Details of the present pleas before the Bench:

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

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

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

Observations by the Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power of Article 142

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

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

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

Directions issued by the Court

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

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

Petitioners’ contentions

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

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

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

Central issues highlighted in the case

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

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

Arguments raised by the parties

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

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

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

Submissions made by the respondents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete judgment may be read below.

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More about the petition filed by the Assam residents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 20, 2024

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

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

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

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 19, 2024

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

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

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

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

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 25, 2024

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

This is from #GirSomnath, #Gujarat.

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

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

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 29, 2024

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

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

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

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

— Hate Detector (@HateDetectors) September 29, 2024

Persistent violations: illegal demolitions continue despite Supreme Court orders

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

#Lucknow: A youth named Aziz commited suicide due to financial crisis in Lucknow today. He was a father of 6 month old. And used to run his family by stitching clothes.

Aziz a resident of Akbar Nagar and sole earner of family, after his house was demolished he was sewing by… pic.twitter.com/AXHhvJFqS9

— Saba Khan (@ItsKhan_Saba) July 28, 2024

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

January 2024: Raking up the myth of temple demolition

Jahangirpuri Demolition: SC to take “serious view of demolitions after Mayor was informed of order”

SC orders status quo on demolitions in Jahangirpuri

The post Muslim tailor commits suicide after LDA ‘demolished’ his house appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Amidst the constant threat of eviction, demolition, and displacement faced by many residents of unauthorised colonies in Delhi, the promise of granting ownership rights to unauthorised colonies during both the state and national elections by the BJP seems to be far from reality. The flagship Pradhan Mantri – Unauthorized Colonies in Delhi Awas Yojana (PM-UDAY), which is implemented by the Centre-run Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its empanelled agencies with the purpose of granting ownership rights to unauthorised colonies in Delhi, has been found to be moving at a snail’s pace in processing the applications for ownership rights, the DDA data reveals. Pertinently, the scheme was introduced in February 2020 following the passage of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Recognition of Property Rights of Residents in Unauthorised Colonies) Act, 2019, which was passed in the parliament in December 2019.

In a response to the parliamentary question asked by the BJP Lok Sabha MP from South Delhi, Ramvir Singh Bidhuri, regarding the “number of people who applied for ownership rights to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in unauthorized colonies of Delhi under PM UDAY scheme” and “the number of people conferred with the ownership rights, colony wise?”, the Minister of State (MoS) for Housing and Urban Affairs, Tokhan Sahu, provided the DDA data which reveals that a total of 122,729 applications were received by DDA for ownership rights under PM-UDAY till July 16, 2024 out of which only 23,811 applicants were conferred ownership rights till the said date. This means that despite the buzz about Jahan Jhuggi Wahan Makan, only 1 in 5 applicants have been able to secure ownership rights, with a low success ratio of 1:5.

Furthermore, the scheme excludes “affluent unauthorized colonies” from the ambit of the scheme, thereby excluding 69 such “affluent” colonies. TOI has reported that the scheme has received “tepid” response among the residents owing to bureaucratic red tape and difficulty in meeting the eligibility criteria. Notably, out of around 40 lakh unauthorised residents, only a few lakh residents have applied for the scheme till date.

The parliamentary response may be read here:

Related:

Amidst Budget Session din, parliamentary responses reveal huge vacancies pending in the Central Government offices | SabrangIndia

The 17th Lok Sabha in review | SabrangIndia

Behind the BJP’s move to lift the 58-year-old ban on the participation of central government officials in RSS activities 

The post In Delhi, 122,729 applications sent to DDA for ownership rights under PM UDAY, only 23,811 conferred ownership rights: Lok Sabha appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The area called Jai Bhim Nagar witnessed a brutal demolition undertaken under the supervision of the police and municipal corporation officials. Armed with JCBs, cranes, and other heavy machinery, the officials entered the area without warning and started the demolition of homes.

This operation was conducted in a hasty manner; many residents were unable to save their personal belongings and valuables. Scores of people even reportedly lost their valuable documents in the process as they were not allowed to enter the area.  Many locals have claimed that the demolitions took place due to certain builders, though there is little clarity on the official’s motivations. NCP MLA Jitendra Awhad has asked why private bouncers were present at the demolition.

Furthermore, there have been no resettlement or rehabilitation related arrangements made for the displaced residents. The demolition did not just leave scores of families homeless but also destroyed their personal and essential property leaving them homeless. Indian Express reported that the residents had protested the demolition, and had invoked Dr B R Ambedkar when the police came. The colony reportedly housed over 500-600 ‘jhuggies.’

However, the demolition did not just lead to displaced residents but also saw reports of harrowing violence and arrests. Children and the elderly were especially affected. Several videos circulating on social media have shown police officers beating residents, including children and the elderly. As per reports, about 66 and 75 people have been arrested and detained in Byculla and Taloja jails.

A Government Resolution (GR) issued by the state explicitly mentions that no ‘jhuggi; or house, regardless of whether it is on government or private land, can be demolished between June 1 and September 30 due to the monsoon season.  Despite this clear order, the recent demolition in Jai Bhim Nagar has taken place, leaving many homeless at a time when Mumbai’s weather will also be at its most difficult for displaced people.

The police have justified these arrests by alleging that the people were involved in stone-pelting incidents. However, residents allege that the violence was provoked by goons hired by a builder who had vested interests in the demolition.

Meanwhile, civic officials have stated that the structures were erected illegally and conveyed that the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) had directed the removal of these structures. According to them, notices were served to the slum-dwellers on June 1.

On June 9th, a peaceful protest was taken out by civil society organisations, activists, and citizens of the Jai Bhim Nagar Powai Rescue Committee at Jai Bhim Nagar to protest what they say are illegal demolitions carried out by the BMC.

They raised three crucial demands which include the demand for resettlement for all residents or the return of land rebuilding their homes. Secondly, they have also asked that compensation be given to the people for the damages caused by the police during the demolition, and lastly, they have asked that all charges against those detained and arrested be withdrawn.

Sabrang India reported, narratives from the ground, saying that they also demand strict action against the MCGM and police officers responsible for the demolition which is violation of the state government’s GR. “We call for an investigation into the role of a builder in inciting violence and hiring private bouncers to act on behalf of the state. If our demands are not met, we will continue our ongoing struggle.”

Related:

 6 victims of demolition get compensation of Rs. 30 lakhs from Assam government

BJP MLA Nitesh Rane leads Hindutva Rally in Govandi, demands demolition of “illegal Masjids and Madrasa”

Govandi slum demolition: Temporary halt after protests outside BMC office by residents, those rendered homeless to rebuild their homes at the same site

The post Mumbai: Hundreds of people displaced after demolitions in Jai Bhim Nagar appeared first on SabrangIndia.