Demolition drives

1. Ashok Vihar demolitions, Delhi: Bulldozers arrive at dawn

In a sweeping demolition drive, a special task force accompanied by a heavy police and paramilitary presence razed over 300 jhuggis (slum dwellings) in the Ashok Vihar area of North Delhi on a Monday morning. The operation, led by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on June 16, targeted more than 200 structures in the densely populated Jailorwala Bagh slum cluster.

The demolition began early in the day, with authorities barricading access roads and deploying multiple bulldozers and personnel from various departments. According to the DDA, the operation exclusively targeted jhuggis whose occupants had already been allocated flats under the in-situ Jailorwala Bagh rehabilitation project or were deemed ineligible under the housing policy. Officials claimed that slums protected by court orders were left untouched.

The official line: The DDA defended the demolition as a lawful and necessary step, claiming that 1,078 families had already been resettled in newly constructed 1BHK flats on the same site. These apartments, developed at a cost of ₹421 crore and valued at ₹25 lakh each, were made available to the rehabilitated families for a highly subsidised rate of ₹1.4 lakh. Another 567 households were declared ineligible based on policy guidelines.

Eligibility, according to the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), depended on two criteria: inclusion in the 2012–2015 voter rolls and possession of at least one of twelve identity documents — such as a ration card, electricity bill, passport, or bank passbook. Disqualified families included those residing on upper floors without separate documentation, minors, and individuals who used their jhuggis for commercial purposes before January 1, 2015.

Authorities also pointed out that nine families successfully contested their rejection and were subsequently allotted homes via a lottery system. As per Times of India, DDA spokesperson asserted, “Due process was followed. We respected all High Court stay orders. The demolitions were confined to those already rehabilitated or found ineligible.”

Hundreds still without shelter: Despite these assurances, ground reports and testimonies from affected residents painted a more distressing picture. Multiple media reports, including The Indian Express, alleged they had been left out of the allotment process despite decades of residence and valid documentation. Rama Devi, a relative of one of the evicted residents, said, “Only about 1,000 families got flats. More than 500 families are still shelterless. We’ve been here for decades, working as street vendors and domestic workers. Now we are evicted without compensation or alternative housing.” Others voiced concerns about the conditions in the newly allotted apartments.

Simultaneous demolitions in Wazirpur: While Ashok Vihar was in the headlines, another anti-encroachment drive was underway in Wazirpur, where the Indian Railways removed hundreds of dwellings built along the tracks. Officials cited safety concerns, such as children playing dangerously close to railway lines and reduced visibility for train drivers. The operation marked the second major clearance in the area within a month.

Security was tight, with police and two companies of paramilitary personnel deployed to prevent any unrest. Officials reported that around 308 illegal dwellings were cleared during the operation.

A pattern emerges: The demolition at Ashok Vihar is only one instance in a broader series of evictions taking place across Delhi. In recent weeks, similar drives were carried out in Bhoomiheen Camp, Madrasi Camp, and most recently in Patel Nagar — where nearly 450 jhuggis were razed on June 11. These actions point to what housing rights activists call an escalating city-wide campaign to remove informal settlements under the guise of “urban renewal.”

The demolitions have sparked sharp political reactions. Former Delhi Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal took to social media to accuse the BJP-led DDA of reneging on its promise of “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahan Makaan” (where there’s a slum, there’ll be a home). “What does the BJP want — to erase every slum in Delhi? Why did the Prime Minister lie during elections?” former CM Kejriwal posted on X.

आख़िर बीजेपी चाहती क्या है? क्या दिल्ली की सभी झुग्गियाँ तोड़ना चाहती है? तो फिर मोदी जी ने क्या चुनाव के वक्त झूठ बोला था – जहाँ झुग्गी, वहाँ मकान? https://t.co/kE6CLFVwiJ

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) June 16, 2025

AAP’s Delhi unit chief Saurabh Bharadwaj echoed the criticism, alleging betrayal and mass displacement.

भाजपा की सरकार जबसे आई है दिल्ली में गरीबों के घर और रोज़गार दोनों उजाड़े जा रहे है ।

मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता पंजाब भ्रमण में लगी हुई हैं और यहाँ दिल्ली में रोज़ बुलडोज़र चलाया जा रहा हैं।

रेखा गुप्ता जी बतायें कि इन ग़रीब लोगों को उजाड़ने से पहले घर कहाँ दिए गए हैं ?

केंद्र… pic.twitter.com/ySJzhSXtXl

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) June 16, 2025

Former AAP MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi was detained by police while protesting against the Wazirpur demolition, further fuelling the political controversy.

भाजपा सरकार के बुलडोज़र का विरोध करने पर पूर्व विधायक अखिलेश पति त्रिपाठी पुलिस की हिरासत में लिए गए

भाजपा सरकार लगातार गरीबों के घरों पर बुलडोज़र चला रही है । pic.twitter.com/y9m3HpWZF1

— Saurabh Bharadwaj (@Saurabh_MLAgk) June 16, 2025

Congress calls for ordinance, cites precedent: As per the Hindustan Times, the Delhi Congress had called on the city’s BJP administration to bring in an ordinance to immediately halt all demolition of slum clusters. Drawing a parallel with a similar move by the Sheila Dikshit-led Congress government in 2011, party leaders said such a step is necessary to prevent a humanitarian disaster.

“Just as the 2011 ordinance saved lakhs of homes, the current BJP government should pass one urgently to protect the poor from becoming homeless,” said Delhi Congress president Devender Yadav, after visiting displaced families in Govindpuri — where nearly 350 homes were bulldozed.

Yadav further alleged that widespread corruption and administrative apathy had excluded long-time residents from the eligibility survey. “People who’ve lived here for 30–40 years were left out deliberately. This, despite court orders in their favour,” he said, as per the HT report. “The BJP doesn’t want to end poverty — it wants to eliminate the poor from the city.”

2. Jamnagar, Gujarat: 7.74 lakh sq. ft. of government land cleared; structure under probe

In Jamnagar, Gujarat, authorities carried out an extensive demolition drive in the Bacchunagar area on June 15, clearing nearly 7.74 lakh square feet of what they described as illegally occupied government land. The cleared land, estimated to be worth approximately ₹193 crore, was reclaimed by a joint operation involving the Jamnagar district administration and police, amid tight security and logistical coordination.

During the course of the operation, as per the report of India Today, officials came across a large structure concealed from public view. Spread over 11,000 square feet, the structure bore the features of a religious site (dargah), and was built with marble flooring, several rooms, and a specially equipped bathing facility. The high-value construction, reportedly erected without authorisation, immediately drew the attention of the district authorities.

The Superintendent of Police, Premsukh Delu, stated that while there were signboards prohibiting donations and access to outsiders, the source of funding for the construction remains unclear. “The nature of the building and its lack of transparency regarding access or finance has raised suspicion. We are currently investigating whether the structure was being used for activities beyond religious purposes,” Delu said, as per Times of India.

A formal inquiry has been initiated to determine ownership, the legality of the construction, and potential links to unlawful activities, if any. Authorities have stated that the building was not listed in official land use records and had no apparent legal sanction for occupation of public land.

This operation is part of a wider effort by the Gujarat administration to remove what it categorises as unauthorised encroachments on state-owned land. The Jamnagar district collectorate has said that further reviews of government land titles in the region are underway, and additional demolitions may follow if more violations are identified.

3. Govindpuri, Delhi: 300+ jhuggis demolished amid heatwave

In the early hours of June 11, 2025, bulldozers rolled into Bhoomiheen Camp, a longstanding informal settlement in Govindpuri, South-East Delhi, as part of a demolition operation conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The drive began around 5:00 a.m., catching many residents off guard. By noon, under a red alert heatwave with temperatures exceeding 45°C, hundreds of families were left out in the open, their homes razed to the ground.

DDA cites court orders, says most structures were ‘uninhabited’: As per the report of The Hindu, the DDA claimed that the demolition was carried out strictly on government land encroached by 344 jhuggi structures. In its statement, the authority said that notices were issued on June 9, giving a three-day window for residents to vacate. The DDA further stated that no court stay order was in effect, and that many of the demolished structures were “uninhabited.”

However, visuals from the ground and testimonies from residents contradicted these assertions, with dozens of families scrambling to retrieve belongings as their homes were torn down. Many affected families are migrant workers and daily-wage earners who have been living in the camp for years, some for decades.

AAP questions BJP-led government’s credibility: The demolition triggered immediate political backlash. Atishi, senior AAP leader and Leader of Opposition in the Delhi Assembly, directly called out Chief Minister Rekha Gupta, questioning her credibility. In a pointed post on X (formerly Twitter), she wrote:

“BJP’s bulldozer started running in the Bhoomiheen camp from 5 a.m. this morning. Rekha Gupta — you said three days ago that not even a single slum would be demolished. Then why are bulldozers running here?”

ग़रीब विरोधी पार्टी है बीजेपी

मुख्यमंत्री रेखा गुप्ता जी ने कहा था, दिल्ली में एक भी झुग्गी को छुआ तक नहीं जाएगा लेकिन आज यहां भूमिहीन कैंप पर सुबह 5 बजे से बुलडोजर चल रहा है।

बीजेपी की DDA और दिल्ली सरकार ने कोर्ट में अपने बड़े-बड़े वकील इन गरीबों के ख़िलाफ़ खड़े किए और कहा… pic.twitter.com/ob2PNKrGcj

— AAP (@AamAadmiParty) June 11, 2025

ये है भाजपा का असली चेहरा।

गरीबों से वोट लेकर फिर उन्हें ही बेघर कर देना। सुबह 5 बजे बुलडोज़र लेकर भूमिहीन कैंप पहुँची बीजेपी सरकार ने हज़ारों गरीबों के आशियाने उजाड़ दिए। बीजेपी को न गरीबों की परवाह है, न इंसानियत की।

बीजेपी का ‘जहां झुग्गी-वहां मकान’ का वादा अब ‘जहां… pic.twitter.com/GseSRgiz2H

— Atishi (@AtishiAAP) June 11, 2025

Former CM Atishi had visited the Bhoomiheen Camp the previous day and was reportedly detained by police while meeting residents, though police later denied the detention.

In response, Chief Minister Rekha Gupta reiterated that the state government could not defy court-directed demolitions, and maintained that alternative accommodation had been provided. However, no data was shared about how many residents had actually been rehabilitated before the eviction.

The timing of the demolition — amid a red alert heatwave issued by the India Meteorological Department — had drawn condemnation. The IMD’s red alert for Delhi explicitly warned of potential “heat illness and heatstroke in all age groups”, particularly for people without access to adequate shelter.

4. Jangpura, Delhi: 50-Year-Old Madrasi camp demolished, over 150 families left without homes

On June 1, 2025, authorities demolished the decades-old Madrasi Camp settlement in Jangpura, South Delhi, displacing hundreds of Tamil-origin residents who had lived there for over five decades. The demolition was carried out in compliance with a Delhi High Court order citing flood risk concerns ahead of the monsoon, as the settlement was situated along the Barapullah drain.

The cluster had become a well-established working-class neighbourhood, housing 370 families, many of whom worked in the informal economy and public services. But as bulldozers flattened the area, questions have emerged over the legality, adequacy, and humanity of the rehabilitation process — and whether the state’s actions respected the displaced community’s rights.

Government claims vs ground reality: In the immediate aftermath of the demolition, Delhi Chief Minister Rekha Gupta defended the operation, stating to the media that, “No one can defy court orders. Residents of that camp have been allotted houses and shifted.”

However, examination of the figures contradicts the government’s blanket assurance of rehabilitation. As per the report of The Wire, while the state claimed that all affected households were relocated to EWS (Economically Weaker Section) flats in Narela, only 189 of the 370 families were initially allotted flats. A further 26 families were later given accommodations. That leaves at least 155 families — over 40% of the entire community — without any alternative shelter.

These residents have been rendered homeless despite having lived in the settlement for decades, raising serious questions about the eligibility criteria, the documentation required, and whether the state fulfilled its legal obligation to ensure prior resettlement before demolition, as per judicial precedents and guidelines laid down in various Supreme Court judgments.

Historical and social context ignored: Madrasi Camp had been one of Delhi’s oldest informal settlements, inhabited primarily by Tamil-speaking Dalit and working-class communities, many of whom had migrated during the 1970s and 1980s for employment in the city. Despite their long-standing presence, residents alleged that they were not given sufficient prior notice, and that the verification process for rehabilitation was flawed and opaque, leaving hundreds ineligible due to technicalities.

The lack of transparency, participation, and timely redressal in these drives has raised serious concerns about the urban poor’s right to housing, especially in a city where informal settlements often fill the vacuum left by inadequate public housing policies.

5. Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh: GNIDA plans demolition of over 20 alleged informal colonies

The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has announced a major demolition campaign targeting more than 20 alleged informal settlements and unauthorised constructions across its jurisdiction. The clearance drive, expected to begin in late June or early July 2025, will be carried out jointly with the district administration and police, and will involve heavy machinery and on-ground security deployment.

While officials describe the campaign as a necessary step to “bring discipline and fairness in land use”, local activists and housing rights groups have raised concerns over the absence of rehabilitation guarantees or transparency in verifying whether affected residents were knowingly complicit in the alleged violations.

According to GNIDA’s Additional CEO, Sumit Yadav, the authority has prepared a ward-wise list of all areas marked for action. “Despite regular advisories and warnings, illegal colonies have continued to proliferate,” Yadav said as per a HT report, adding that earthmovers will be used to clear structures built without formal approval.

Many of the settlements now facing demolition were established after agricultural land was illegally sold and converted into residential plots by private colonisers — often without informing buyers that the land was not approved for habitation under the city’s master plan. Residents, many of whom have invested their life savings, now face eviction without clarity on alternative arrangements or accountability for the fraudulent transactions.

GNIDA claims that it acquires land from farmers under planned urban development schemes, in accordance with a notified master plan that demarcates zones for roads, utilities, and various types of land use. “Plots are meant to be allocated for approved residential, industrial, institutional, and commercial purposes. But certain colonisers have been subverting this by carving out unauthorised colonies and misleading buyers,” a senior official said, according to the HT report.

The authority said the decision to launch this campaign was taken after a recent inter-departmental strategy meeting, and that strict action would be taken not only against settlers but also against land mafias and intermediaries involved in the unauthorised conversion and sale of land.

In response to anticipated backlash, the authority has urged citizens to verify land status before purchasing plots, pointing them to the GNIDA website and land records department for ownership and land use verification. However, critics argue that such post-facto advisories offer little solace to low-income buyers now facing homelessness.

The upcoming clearance operation forms part of a wider pattern of urban land enforcement seen across Indian cities, where rapid development pressures and speculative real estate markets have frequently clashed with housing rights and the reality of widespread informal urbanisation.

Cases concerning demolitions before Courts:

1. Supreme Court upholds Bombay HC’s demolition order in case involving land mafia and illegal construction

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on June 17, 2025, upheld the Bombay High Court’s interim order directing the demolition of 17 illegally constructed buildings in Thane, Maharashtra—structures alleged to have been built by builders with links to the underworld, and without any sanction or ownership over the land.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan dismissed a special leave petition filed by a flat purchaser who contended that she and other innocent buyers—over 400 families—were being rendered homeless despite no wrongdoing on their part. The petitioner also highlighted that she was a senior citizen who had made representations to multiple state authorities, including the Chief Minister, but had received no redressal.

However, the Court declined to intervene, observing that the buildings were constructed on third-party land without any approvals, and backed the Bombay High Court’s strong stance against what it described as a “land mafia” operation that had flourished due to state inaction and complicity.

As per LiveLaw, Justice Manmohan had remarked: “Kudos to the High Court for taking a right decision… there is no rule of law when such massive illegal constructions come up with underworld backing. Unless action is taken against these unscrupulous builders, this will continue — people will keep fighting gorilla battles using the shoulders of innocent buyers. That must stop.”

Justice Bhuyan questioned how individuals were able to purchase flats in such projects without proper documentation, suggesting buyers must seek redress against the builders in appropriate forums.

Notably, the Bombay High Court, in its June 12 order, had acknowledged the plight of the petitioner but noted that: “Such construction could not have come up except with the blessings of the government and municipal officers… It is shocking that such brazen illegalities were allowed to persist, ultimately defrauding innocent flat purchasers.”

The High Court had empowered the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) to proceed with the demolition without waiting for further orders, given the scale of illegality and the urgency of reclaiming the encroached land. The original writ petition in the High Court was filed by a woman who claimed ownership over the encroached land, and alleged that unauthorised five-storey structures had been erected by the land mafia in violation of planning laws. Although the petitioner before the Supreme Court was allowed to withdraw the plea with liberty to approach the High Court, the interim demolition order continues to stand, signalling a tough judicial posture against illegal construction and official collusion.

2. Supreme Court stays Dargah demolition for 7 days, allows trust to seek recall of Bombay HC order

In a significant intervention on June 17, the Supreme Court stayed the demolition of a disputed dargah structure in Thane for a period of seven days, offering a limited but crucial window of relief to the Pardeshi Baba Trust, which has been locked in a long-standing legal battle over the structure’s legality. A vacation bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale passed the interim order while hearing a special leave petition challenging the Bombay High Court’s recent demolition directive.

The case centres on a shrine in Thane, which, according to official records and court proceedings, originally occupied just 160 square feet. Over the years, the structure is alleged to have expanded without necessary municipal approvals, eventually occupying a built-up area of over 17,610 square feet. The land itself is private, and the expansion has been challenged by the original landowner, setting off a prolonged legal conflict that has played out across multiple forums over the last two decades.

In its recent order, the Bombay High Court had strongly rebuked both the Trust and the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC). Asper LiveLaw, the High Court labelled the Trust’s actions as “unscrupulous” and accused the civic body of filing “evasive affidavits.” The court directed the demolition of all unauthorised portions of the structure, expressing frustration at what it viewed as blatant land encroachment under the pretext of religious activity. The TMC had earlier filed reports confirming that the expansion had taken place without planning permission and that certain parts of the structure had been rebuilt even after prior demolition action was initiated.

Pardeshi Baba Trust contests order, cites omitted Civil Suit dismissal: Appearing for the Pardeshi Baba Trust, Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the Bombay High Court had failed to consider a crucial fact—the dismissal of a related civil suit in April 2025. According to Ahmadi, the Trust had informed the High Court about the suit in its pleadings, but the High Court neither referred to it nor addressed its implications in the demolition order. He argued that the High Court’s failure to engage with this material development severely undermined the fairness of the demolition directive.

According to the report of LiveLaw, Ahmadi also challenged the extent of the alleged encroachment. He contended that the High Court had mistakenly assumed the entire 17,610 sq. ft. to be illegal construction, while in fact, the dispute pertained to only 3,600 sq. ft. He further accused the landowner of exaggerating the extent of the unauthorised area and argued that the demolition order went well beyond the scope of the writ petition.

On the other side, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, appearing for the private landowner, strongly defended the High Court’s conclusions. She said the Trust had engaged in a deliberate and systematic land grab under the guise of religion and that the High Court’s remarks were justified. She pointed to municipal inspection reports and photographic evidence showing that the illegal portions had not only been constructed without approval, but some had also been rebuilt in contempt of earlier orders. Divan also accused the Trust of playing procedural games to delay enforcement and shield the encroachment.

Supreme Court criticises omission, offers limited relief: After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court bench expressed concern about procedural irregularities, particularly the Trust’s claim that the High Court had failed to consider the dismissal of the civil suit. Justice Sandeep Mehta called this omission “embarrassing” and noted that had the High Court been made fully aware of the civil proceedings’ outcome, its decision might have been different.

“We propose to give them permission to file a recall in view of the fact that the High Court seems to have omitted to consider the fact of the disposal of the suit,” the bench observed orally during the hearing, as reported by LiveLaw.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Trust to approach the Bombay High Court with a recall application and ordered that the demolition be paused for a period of seven days to allow this process to unfold. The Court clarified that it was not deciding on the legality of the construction but only intervening on procedural grounds. It also left open the possibility for the Trust to return to the Supreme Court if the High Court declines to entertain the recall application. The Court made it clear that no further demolition would take place during this interim window. The legal status of the structure, the extent of unauthorised construction, and the validity of past permissions, if any, remain to be conclusively decided.

3. Bombay High Court slaps ₹1 lakh cost on journalist for PIL against SRA Project

On June 17, 2025, the Bombay High Court imposed ₹1 lakh in costs on petitioner Ankush Jaiswal, a self-proclaimed electronic media journalist, for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the demolition of a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) project in Kandivali (East), Mumbai, which the court deemed to be a gross abuse of the legal process.

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne found that the PIL lacked any genuine public interest and was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, since a similar plea filed by the same petitioner had already been dismissed by another bench in September 2022.

The impugned building—comprising six wings—is part of the Bandongri Ekta Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., developed under the SRA scheme. Jaiswal alleged multiple regulatory violations, including failure to maintain statutory distance from the National Highway and non-obtaining of requisite No-Objection Certificates (NOCs) prior to construction.

However, as per LiveLaw, the bench took serious note of the fact that:

• The petitioner approached the court 22 years after the project’s completion,
• He himself resides in the same SRA building that he claimed was “dangerous to life”,
• And that the rehabilitated slum dwellers would be rendered homeless if the court were to entertain such a plea.

The Court remarked that the PIL amounted to a “serious violation of the constitutional guarantee of shelter” for those already rehabilitated and questioned whether Jaiswal sought to push residents back onto the streets under the guise of public interest.

According to LiveLaw, dismissing the petition, the bench observed:

“The petition is an abuse of process. The plea is devoid of public interest and suffers from the bar of res judicata. It is not the function of the court to unsettle rehabilitation that has been completed decades ago, especially at the instance of one who continues to reside in the very building he attacks.”

The Court directed that the cost be recovered from the ₹1 lakh deposit previously made by the petitioner to demonstrate his bona fides, and the sum be transferred to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority (MSLSA).

4. Telangana High Court stays demolition of shopping complex adjacent to Peddapalli Government Hospital

On June 17, 2025, the Telangana High Court passed an interim order suspending the proposed demolition of a shopping complex adjacent to the Peddapalli Government Hospital, offering relief to the petitioner, Kishan Prakash Jhawer, who had filed a writ petition challenging the notice of eviction issued to him by state authorities.

Justice K. Sarath granted the stay after hearing arguments that the demolition was arbitrary, politically motivated, and unsupported by legal justification.

Background of the case

• The petitioner entered into a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement with the Medical Department in 2007, granting him rights to operate the shopping complex for 25 years.
• On May 22, 2025, authorities issued a notice asking the petitioner to vacate the premises.
• The petitioner’s counsel, Deepak Misra, argued that this notice was based on oral instructions from the local MLA, with no legal basis.
• He also highlighted that separate proceedings were initiated in July 2024 for demolition and reconstruction of the dilapidated hospital building, not the shopping complex.

Petitioner’s arguments

• The notice lacked legal authority and cited no formal decision or government order mandating the shopping complex’s demolition.
• The shopping complex was an independent structure, not part of the old hospital building slated for reconstruction.
• The impugned action was arbitrary, motivated by political influence, and violative of contractual rights under the BOT lease.

Court’s order: Justice K. Sarath observed that a prima facie case was made out by the petitioner and stayed the proposed demolition until further hearing.

The Court emphasised that demolition of a separate, lawfully leased structure under the pretext of hospital redevelopment requires proper legal procedure, and politically driven oral instructions cannot override statutory contracts.

5. Delhi High Court grants interim relief against demolition in Batla House

On June 16, 2025, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection against demolition to six properties in the Batla House locality of Okhla, South East Delhi, in response to petitions filed by residents challenging the legality of notices issued by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).

Justice Tejas Karia directed that status quo be maintained until the next date of hearing and issued notice to the DDA, requiring a response within four weeks. The matter is scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2025, before the roster bench.

Background of the Dispute: The petitioners — Heena Parveen, Jinat Kausar, Rukhsana Begam, Nihal Fatima, Sufiyan Ahmed, Sajid Fakhar, among others — approached the Court after receiving generic demolition notices from DDA in May 2025, targeting properties allegedly situated within Khasra Number 279.

Their core arguments included:

• Lack of demarcation: Petitioners argued that not all properties within Khasra No. 279 are illegal, and some lie outside its boundary. The DDA had failed to provide precise demarcation or individualised assessment in the notices.
• PM-UDAY scheme coverage: Several petitioners claimed their properties were covered under the PM-UDAY scheme, which provides a framework for legalising unauthorized colonies in Delhi.
• Historic occupancy: Some petitioners, such as Nihal Fatima, claimed residence in the area since 1980–82, asserting that the structures were purchased from builders and were supported by documents — albeit some in Urdu and Farsi, which were later translated.

DDA’s stand and Supreme Court reference: The DDA’s standing counsel opposed the plea, arguing that the demarcation report had already been submitted before the Supreme Court, and a demolition order dated June 4, 2025, was passed based on that.

However, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s earlier order of May 7, which clarified that occupants were free to seek appropriate legal remedies, thereby legitimising the High Court’s jurisdiction in entertaining the present petitions.

The Court also referenced a June 4 order in Ishrat Jahan’s case, where it had directed the DDA to file a detailed affidavit on demarcation and proposed action, due within three weeks.

Related:

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

India: A deep dive into the legal obligations before “deportation”

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

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

The post Razed to the ground, taken to Court: The legal and social fallout of India’s demolition drives appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through strong language and principled restraint, the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih sent a clear message to public servants across India—no one is immune from the consequences of flouting judicial authority, and arrogance of power is no defense when confronted with the authority of law.

Factual background

The roots of the case trace back to the actions of the petitioner while serving as a Tahsildar in the Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh. During his tenure, the petitioner oversaw a demolition operation targeting a slum settlement, despite the existence of a categorical direction from the Andhra Pradesh High Court prohibiting any such eviction or demolition.

According to records and the observations of the High Court, the petitioner orchestrated the demolition using a force of approximately 80 police personnel, thereby displacing numerous slum-dwellers, many of whom were from socio-economically weaker sections. The Court emphasized the inhumanity and callous disregard for judicial authority in his conduct.

Upon discovering this blatant breach, the Andhra Pradesh High Court initiated contempt proceedings, resulting in a finding of civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment.

The petitioner, by then promoted to the rank of Deputy Collector, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, challenging the sentence imposed, though not disputing the conviction.

The May 6 Hearing: Disobedience, arrogance, and judicial rebuke

During the hearing on May 6, 2025, the Supreme Court, having earlier issued notice on the sentencing aspect, explored the possibility of adopting a non-custodial punishment, considering the petitioner’s family circumstances, particularly his two children studying in Classes XI and XII.

The Bench had asked Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka, appearing for the petitioner, to seek instructions on whether the officer was willing to accept demotion to his original rank of Deputy Tahsildar as a substitute for imprisonment.

However, when the matter resumed on May 6, Bharuka informed the Court that the petitioner had categorically refused to accept demotion. This response shocked and angered the Bench, which had already shown considerable leniency.

As per a report of LiveLaw, Justice Gavai observed:

“We were trying to save his career for the sake of his children. But his adamant attitude shows exactly how he must have treated the High Court’s orders—with defiance and contempt.”

Justice Gavai questioned the petitioner’s lack of remorse, invoking a piercing moral argument:

“When you led 80 policemen to demolish homes of the poor, did you remember God then?”

Even though the Court offered a middle path—to demote him only to the post of Tahsildar instead of the originally proposed Deputy Tahsildar—the petitioner remained unyielding. The Court warned that such arrogance and non-cooperation would not go unpunished.

The Bench went so far as to threaten dismissal and career-ending observations in the Court’s final order. According to the LiveLaw report, Justice Gavai issued a sharp caution:

“If he remains this adamant, not only will we dismiss the petition, but we’ll pass such stringent remarks that no authority will dare reinstate him. He thinks he’s close to the government—he must be a protocol director—but that doesn’t protect him from the law.”

Ultimately, on Bharuka’s request, the matter was adjourned to May 9, with the Bench giving a final opportunity for the petitioner to reconsider his position. Before adjourning the matter to May 9, the Court again urged Bharuka to convince the petitioner, stating that the window for leniency was quickly closing. Justice Gavai concluded the session with a damning indictment of the petitioner’s character:

“He threw people out of their homes. We don’t want to become like him.”

This moment revealed the Court’s moral compass—driven by law, but not devoid of empathy.

Arguments advanced by the parties:

Petitioner sought leniency in sentencing, citing:

• The potential loss of livelihood if the officer was imprisoned.
• The educational needs of the petitioner’s two children, studying in Classes XI and XII.
• The economic impact on the family.

• Emphasised the absence of malicious intent behind the demolition.

Respondent opposed leniency, arguing:

• The act amounted to a gross abuse of power.
• It was a deliberate, calculated disobedience of a judicial order.
• The officer’s callousness towards poor slum dwellers demonstrated complete insensitivity.

The May 9 Judgment: Conviction confirmed, sentence modified

When the matter was resumed on May 9, the petitioner, through counsel, finally agreed to the Court’s proposal for demotion, prompting the Bench to adopt a measured sentencing approach. Emphasizing the sanctity of judicial authority, the Court declared that no public servant, regardless of rank, can flout court orders with impunity. The bench observed:

“When a Constitutional Court or for that matter, any court issues any direction, every person or authority regardless of rank, is duty bound to respect and comply with that order. Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.” (Para 16)

“The majesty of law lies not only in punishing but also in forgiving when appropriate.” (Para 11)

Though the Court took a lenient view of the sentence to protect the interests of the officer’s family—particularly his two school-going daughters—it maintained a firm stance on the principle of accountability. Justice Gavai explained that the lenient sentence was not because the petitioner was entitled to it, but because of the collateral impact on his innocent family:

“While we are of the considered view that the appellant does not merit any leniency on account of his adamant and callous conduct, we find that his children and family should not suffer as a consequence of his actions.” (Para 12)

A custodial sentence, the Court observed, would lead to dismissal from service and deprive his family of livelihood. Hence, a balance was struck by demoting the officer and fining him. The Court rebuked the petitioner for expecting humanitarian consideration while himself having acted in a “cruel and inhumane” manner toward vulnerable slum dwellers. The bench made it clear that compassion cannot be a one-way street:

“We are of the view that the appellant ought to have considered the consequences before demolishing the structures of the home dwellers and throwing them on the road along with their belongings and that too despite of the specific warnings given to him by the High Court in its order dated 11th December 2013.” (Para 8)

“The actions of the appellant were inhumane. If the appellant expects this Court to take a humanitarian approach, such conduct was not expected from him.” (Para 9)

The Bench made it clear that this order would be reportable, underscoring its precedential value and public importance.

Observations of the Court in its judgement

1. Wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

The judgment affirms the importance of strict liability in contempt cases involving public servants. The petitioner’s act of leading a demolition drive in defiance of a High Court order fits squarely within the statutory definition of civil contempt (Section 2(b))—i.e., “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court.”

The petitioner neither denied the act nor contested the High Court’s finding—only the sentence. This posture itself demonstrated a lack of contrition, further justifying the Supreme Court’s harsh words and disciplinary outcome.

2. Constitutional Principles: Rule of law and judicial supremacy

The Court’s declaration—“No one, howsoever high, is above the law”—reiterates Article 14 (equality before law) and the rule of law doctrine, which anchors the Indian constitutional framework.

In asserting that all public authorities are bound to comply with judicial directions, the Court reaffirmed the idea that judicial decisions are binding, not advisory. Any defiance is not merely administrative overreach—it is a constitutional violation.

3. Doctrine of proportionality in sentencing

While upholding the conviction, the Court applied the doctrine of proportionality in modifying the sentence. It balanced:

• The gravity of the misconduct (violence, illegal eviction),
• The need to protect judicial authority,
• And the mitigating circumstances (impact on the petitioner’s children, loss of livelihood).

By opting for demotion instead of jail time, the Court imposed a meaningful penalty that retains institutional deterrence, yet spares innocent dependents. This is a progressive model of judicial balancing, serving both justice and mercy.

4. Accountability in public office

This case signals a strong institutional message to bureaucrats and political functionaries: administrative power is not a shield against accountability. The petitioner’s reliance on political proximity and his title as “Director of Protocol” was dismissed as irrelevant to his duty to obey court orders.

Key directions and rationale of the court

• The petitioner was demoted from Deputy Collector to Tahsildar, with a direction that future promotions may only be considered from this new post.
• He must also pay a fine of ₹1 lakh within four weeks.
• The Court underscored that serving 48 hours in jail would have resulted in automatic dismissal from service, potentially jeopardizing the livelihood of his entire family—including two school-going children. This humanitarian concern led the Court to temper the sentence, while not absolving the officer of guilt.

Conclusion: A Judicial Message for the Nation

This judgment is far more than a disciplinary order—it is a constitutional proclamation. It reasserts the inviolability of judicial orders, calls out bureaucratic impunity, and restores faith in the majesty of the law. It demonstrates how the Supreme Court can be stern without being cruel, compassionate without being weak.

Through sharp rebuke and calibrated justice, the Court has immortalized a powerful message:

“Disobedience of the orders passed by the court attacks the very foundation of the rule of law on which the edifice of a democracy is based.” (Para 16)

This case will serve as a template for future contempt proceedings, a reminder to public officials about their constitutional obligations, and an example of how courts can defend the powerless against the powerful.

The complete judgement may be read below.

Related:

FIR meant to fail: MP High Court calls out state’s attempt to shield BJP minister, in hate speech case, to monitor probe

A Republic That Listens: The Supreme Court’s poetic defence of dissent through Imran Pratapgarhi judgment

Not Fragile, Not Silent: SC chooses principle over punishment in response to BJP MP Dubey’s outburst, reasserts role as Constitutional check

Judicial Setback: Supreme Court dilutes Bombay HC’s bold stand on police accountability in custodial killing in Badlapur case

The post “No One is Above the Law”: Supreme Court demotes Deputy Collector for demolishing a slum settlement by flouting HC order appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On April 1, 2025, a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan found that the demolitions had been executed in blatant disregard of due process, with authorities failing to provide proper notice before destroying the residences. The ruling underscored the constitutional protections afforded under Article 21, reminding the state that “the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India… Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”

Violation of Due Process and Right to Shelter

The Court expressed its deep dismay at the brazen manner in which these demolitions were carried out. “These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the manner which we have discussed in detail,” the bench stated, as per LiveLaw. Justice Oka, during the hearing, further criticised the conduct of the authorities, observing, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process.”

One of the most damning aspects of the ruling was the Court’s rejection of the method by which demolition notices were allegedly served. As per the details of the case, the authorities had affixed notices to properties instead of properly delivering them in person or by registered post, effectively depriving the occupants of any real opportunity to challenge the demolition orders. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka remarked, condemning the practice as a flagrant violation of legal safeguards.

Procedural lapses and flawed execution of notice

The timeline of events further illustrated the authorities’ disregard for procedural fairness. As dictated by Justice Oka in his order, a show-cause notice under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, was issued on December 18, 2020, and immediately affixed, with a perfunctory note claiming two prior unsuccessful attempts at personal service. A demolition order followed on January 8, 2021, which was again affixed but never sent via registered post. The first registered post communication was dispatched only on March 1, 2021, received on March 6, and the demolition was carried out the very next day—denying the appellants any meaningful chance to exercise their right to appeal under Section 27(2) of the Act.

The Supreme Court firmly rejected this approach, clarifying that the objective of the proviso to Section 27(1) was to ensure a genuine opportunity for affected individuals to respond before any demolition took place. “The object of the proviso to Section 27(1) is to provide a reasonable opportunity to show cause before demolition. This is no way of granting a reasonable opportunity,” the Court held, as per a report in LiveLaw.

Interpretation of legal provisions on service of notice

The order also addressed the legal requirements for serving notices under Section 43 of the U.P. Planning Act. The Court highlighted that affixation could only be resorted to if personal service had genuinely been attempted and failed. “When the provision talks about a person who cannot be found, it is obvious that genuine efforts are required to be made for effecting service in person. It cannot be that the person entrusted with the job of serving notice goes to the house and affixes it after finding that on that day the person concerned is not available. It is obvious that repeated efforts have to be made to make personal service. Only if those efforts fail then there are two options available. One is of affixing and second is of sending by registered post,” the Court observed.

The Court’s ruling also referenced its 2024 decision in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures, which laid down clear guidelines for the service of notices and procedural safeguards to be followed before demolishing structures. While the present case predated that judgment, the Court applied Section 43 to underscore the authorities’ failure to comply with even existing statutory requirements.

Compensation and accountability

Initially, the Court had considered allowing the appellants to rebuild their homes, provided they undertook to demolish them at their own cost if their appeals were ultimately unsuccessful. However, during the latest hearing, their counsel submitted that they lacked the financial means to do so, prompting the Court to award compensation instead. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, opposed this move, arguing that the affected individuals had alternate accommodations. The Court rejected this line of reasoning outright, stating that the availability of alternative housing did not justify the violation of due process.

Justice Oka was emphatic that financial compensation was necessary to ensure accountability. “We will record this whole thing as illegal. And fix compensation of ₹10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this, so that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” he declared during the hearing.

Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not ruled on the appellants’ ownership rights over the land in question, leaving them free to initiate proceedings to establish their title. Additionally, it directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to “scrupulously follow” the guidelines set out in In Re Directions In The Matter Of Demolition Of Structures going forward, ensuring that such abuses do not recur.

A win for due process, justice and equality

The case had an additional political dimension, with the petitioners alleging that the State had wrongly linked their properties to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was assassinated in 2023. They maintained that their homes were demolished without notice under this pretext. The Uttar Pradesh government countered that the structures were unauthorised and that the occupants had overstayed their leases. The Allahabad High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the State, dismissing the petitioners’ challenge on the grounds that their leases had expired in 1996 and that their freehold applications had been rejected in 2015 and 2019.

This Supreme Court order represents a crucial intervention against the increasing trend of illegal demolitions carried out under the guise of law enforcement. By awarding substantial compensation and issuing a strong condemnation of the Prayagraj Development Authority’s actions, the Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that due process cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative expediency. The said stance of the Supreme Court sends a clear message that state authorities cannot bulldoze homes without following the law—a warning that should serve as a precedent in future cases of unlawful demolitions and state-sponsored targeting.

Related:

Maharashtra Human Rights Commission probes Malvan demolitions after suo moto cognisance

Hegemony and Demolitions: The Tale of Communal Riots in India in 2024

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

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

The post Supreme Court slams Prayagraj demolitions, awards Rs. 10 lakh compensation to each six victims for violation of due process appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Details of the present pleas before the Bench:

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

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

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

Observations by the Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power of Article 142

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

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

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

Directions issued by the Court

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

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

Petitioners’ contentions

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

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

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

Central issues highlighted in the case

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

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

Arguments raised by the parties

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

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

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

Submissions made by the respondents:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The complete judgment may be read below.

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

Related:

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

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

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

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

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

The Land & Development Office (L&DO), of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, began a demolition drive on July 13 that displaced over 250 families from the area. However, on July 31.

However, on July 31, residents received a judgment from the Delhi HC after an appeal on humanitarian grounds, which granted them two months more to vacate the premises.

However, inexplicably on September 3, 2024, Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Delhi HC ordered a revised date after considering a fresh application by the L&DO. This application argued that the court’s order “has been partly carried out…while a majority of encroachers have already vacated the subject land, some of them, including the petitioners herein, still remain in occupation of the land as they have been granted protection from this Court till September 30, 2024.”

The court has ruled in favour of this argument, asserting that “the affidavits of 104 out of 122 residents have been filed. Accordingly, it is directed that the hutments of the residents whose affidavits have not been filed, will not be protected by the order dated July 31, 2024 as modified.”

In other words, the houses of 18 families may be demolished any day with complete impunity. The remaining 104 will receive time no later than the September 15.

This has put tremendous pressure on the residents, who are mainly from the Dalit community. In an alarming move, they have written an open letter to the President, declaring their desire for euthanasia.

No sign of resettlement

The Khyber Pass Hostel housed personnel from the Ministry of Defence before going into disuse several decades ago. The current residents are the descendants of the service staff kept in the servant quarters. They have been occupying these quarters for 70 years now.

Notably, one resident Mohammed Mobeen (52), who is also the secretary of the Housing Working Committee of Khyber Pass, has been writing to various government departments for decades urging resettlement. Much of the correspondence that these reporters have accessed suggests that there was no official policy and no funds based on which resettlement could be carried out. These letters, exchanged with various representatives of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), state that the DDA could act to resettle the residents only if the Ministry of Defence provided the resources.

However, after several decades of non-action to relocate the residents, the L&DO, who leased this land to the Ministry of Defence, circulated an eviction notice on March 1, 2024 giving the residents till March 4, 2024 to vacate the premises and begin demolitions.

Petitions filed by the residents halted the drive till July 9, 2024 when the court ruled in favour of the L&DO, calling the residents “rank trespassers” with no claim to resettlement since the Khyber Pass hostels are not recognised as a jhuggi-jhopri cluster by the Delhi Urban Slum Improvement Board (DUSIB). After granting the residents till September 30, to vacate on humanitarian grounds the court has now revised this date to September 15.

“This is not remotely enough time to pack our lives and move, given that our generations have been living here even before independence. The court should have given us at least six months or more,” says Mobeen.

Residents under pressure 

Usha (60), who works at a local NGO and is a resident of Khyber Pass’ Chaurasi Line, is a single mother of four, one of whom is disabled. With the imminent demolition, she is looking for houses to rent in Burari, which will be significantly farther from her workplace. “Wazirabad is closer but nothing is cheaper than Rs 10,000 there,” says Usha.

Sunita* is equally worried about the rents which have increased due to the ongoing demands. “My husband supplies disposable cups to markets and earns between Rs 5000-6000 a month. If the rent is 7-8k then how will we survive?” says Sunita. Most residents here are informal workers who earn anything between Rs. 8000-18,000 per month.

“We have been living on the margins here for more than 50 years, and we are now being evicted by the government even from our own homes,” says Ahmed, another resident. “Refugees from Pakistan are to be given settlement, ration, and jobs. But citizens themselves are being dragged out to die on the streets. The prime minister who calls himself the son of a poor man is having the poor removed from their homes. The L&DO, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, and therefore central government are responsible for our displacement,” adds Ahmed.

A harsh judgement 

Kawalpreet Kaur, a lawyer with the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), a collective of lawyers and human rights activists that provides pro-bono legal services to marginalised communities, calls the Delhi HC’s decision to not rehabilitate the residents of Khyber Pass, harsh.

“Despite past judgments like in the case of Ajay Maken vs Union of India (2018) and Sudama Singh vs Government of Delhi (2010) that established that slum dwellers have a right to rehabilitation, of late courts have been overriding these precedents. Instead of protecting the constitutional rights of its citizens, the court has started acting like municipal corporations monitoring who is legal and who is not,” says Kaur.

The residents claim that they have been paying electricity bills and voting in the neighbourhood for several decades. “How come we are illegal now and not when the government was providing us facilities?” says Sunita an old resident of the settlement.

Recently, the SC ordered the Uttarakhand government to create a rehabilitation plan for over 50,000 residents who had been living on ‘encroached’ railway land, adjoining the Haldwani railway station. The court argued that while encroachment is an issue, providing humanitarian aid is the state’s foremost responsibility. There too, the residents had been living even before independence.

While DUSIB states that there are only 675 slums in Delhi, the state government’s official estimates from 2012 belie this claim, putting the number at 6343.

Spate of demolitions 

Due to this spate in demolition drives across the city, residents are speculating about the potential use the Khyber Pass land will be subjected to. In 2003, houses in what used to be Durga Basti, located across the street from Khyber Pass, were demolished by L&DO to make way for a Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) depot and commercial complex.

for a Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) depot and commercial complex. In addition to that initial project, a residential complex has been built by Parsavnath Developers Ltd, and now, after a series of bureaucratic developments, a shopping mall, namely VR Metropolitan, continues to be under construction after decades via the MGF Group.

Some of the residents of Khyber Pass claim to have had tea stalls, other informal businesses, and houses in the erstwhile basti, and claim that they were compensated for its demolition. The aggressive push for the evictions in Khyber Pass Hostel, and yet the refusal for compensation or resettlement, has led to speculation that this land is about to be used for some similar development projects for the more rich in society.

Several young men these reporters spoke with had outbursts of anger against the central government and declared that they will not easily give up their homes. Rajan* a young resident recalled, “They said they will uplift the poor. Now they are destroying our homes for the rich.”

Notably, according to a report published in March 2024 by the Delhi-based advocacy group Housing and Land Rights Network, approximately 2.8 lakh residents in Delhi were rendered homeless due to forced evictions and demolitions in 2023 alone.

*Name changed to maintain anonymity.

(The author. Ankita Dhar Karmakar is an independent journalist based in Delhi and Sidharth Singh is a freelance writer, currently teaching at Ashoka University)

The post As Khyber Pass demolitions get preponed to Sept 15, residents decry decision appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Explaining the concept of domicide, Fahad Zuberi in his Indian Express article notes that demolition can be “both constructive and destructive”, but domicide, on the other hand, “is the killing of home”. He continues, “A home is a living breathing ecosystem. It is built of memories, snippets of life’s milestones, and social interactions. Home is a promise of safety, a necessity for dignity and a matter of pride. Home is the place for a family to live and build a future, to aspire and dream…to rejoice in achievements and to mourn and grieve in loss…Home is the basis of identity, a requirement for state welfare, and even a qualifier to be counted by the state. Home is a place to exercise rights, to engage with others in privacy and dignity, the last bastion against societal stigma, and the last space where the right to privacy can materialise. Home, therefore, is alive and hence, home is not demolished. Home is killed.”

Such “killing of homes” in Delhi has been going on since long time, but the matter has exacerbated in the last few years, with significant increase in the number of people affected due to eviction drives in the city. In February this year, the Delhi Forest Department carried out demolition drive on the ‘forest land’ in Tughlakabad and Aya Nagar, ThePrint reported. The drive which began on February 27 and continued the next day, demolished around 25-30 houses. The forest department claimed to have recovered 1.5 hectares of forest land from the ‘illegal’ possession. Many of the residents were served the notices in the evening, and the next day in the morning JCBs started bulldozing their houses, some of them were not even present as their houses got demolished. A resident claimed that they have been living here for 15 years with all the legal documents including Aadhar and electricity bill, and questioned what the forest department was doing all these years?

The Times of India reported that the demolitions carried out over the couple of days in Tughlaqabad, Sangam Vihar, Neb Sarai and Ayanagar was in adherence with the direction issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to free the encroached forest lands, following the NGT order in 2015 in the case of Sonya Ghosh v Govt of NCT and Others.

Similarly, on February 28, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) carried out demolition in Khajuri Khas, bulldozing the house of Wakeel Hassan, the famous rat-hole miner who along with his team of fellow rathole miners had rescued the trapped labourers from the Silkyara tunnel in Uttarakhand in 2023. The family of Hassan allege that he was targeted because of his Muslim identity. As per the Indian Express report, Shri Ram Colony where Hassan lived featured among the list of unauthorised colonies, but Hassan was quoted as saying, “My house is unauthorised the way the entire colony is unauthorised. The whole exercise is to extort money from me.” He also alleged that no notice was served before razing his house. The demolition suggested that his house was particularly targeted even as some other houses in the colony remained unaffected. Ironically, DDA which was setup with the purpose of providing affordable housing to the economically weaker sections of the society has become of the leading agencies driving wholesale demolitions in the national capital to remove the encroachments and ‘illegal’ structures.

Throughout the month of January 2024, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) reportedly carried out a total of 440 demolitions. MCD claimed that it recovered around 70 acres from these demolition activities removing “illegal structures”. The areas where it carried out its operation include Dera Mandi, Bhati, Said-ul-Azaib, Chattarpur, Burari, Jaitpur, and Narela. The same report noted that the zealous demolitions drives were resumed after the temporary ban was lifted on construction and demolition activities under the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP). Notably, GRAP Stage III is invoked whenever the AQI index goes above 400, and during its stage III enforcement, all construction and demolition activities are completely banned to mitigate air pollution in the city.

On January 30, 2024, DDA demolished one mosque, four temples and 77 graves in Sanjay Van, which are were recorded as illegal structures in the protected Southern Ridge, Hindustan Times reported. DDA also demolished the historic Akhondji mosque as part this drive, which finds mention in Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) list under entry no 135, which recorded that the monument was repaired in 1853, much before Sanjay Van or DDA came up, contradicting the agency’s claim about its illegality. Notably, the agency also demolished the house of the grave digger Zakir Hussain in the process, leaving his family without any roof.

On December 21, 2023, MCD demolished around 300 houses near DPS Mathura Road in Nizamuddin, leaving the residents without any shelter in the biting cold of Delhi winters, Indian Express reported. Furthermore, the residents affected due to the demolition found no place in urban shelter homes run by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB), as the DUSIB run shelter homes refused them entry. A month before, on November 13, 2023, large number of Burari residents were reported protesting against the demolition orders sent by the Land and Building Department, affecting around 1000 families and 4800 individuals, Land Conflict Watch reported. In the same month, New Indian Express noted that the demolition drive carried out against alleged encroachments in a slum cluster near Sunder Nursery at Nizamuddin has rendered over 500 families homeless.

HLRN report notes that most evictions (58.7%) during 2022-23 were carried out under the category of slum clearance/anti-encroachment, followed by 35% of evictions under the category of infrastructure and ‘development’ projects. It further revealed that in “….at least 36 per cent of evictions in 2023 and 27 per cent of evictions in 2022, affected persons belonged to historically marginalized groups, including religious minorities, Adivasis/Scheduled Tribes, Dalits/Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes, as well as nomadic and indigenous communities, such as the Gadia Lohars.”

In the backdrop of G20 summit, which was hosted in New Delhi in 2023, thousands of poor residents were further rendered homeless, as the authorities zealously made efforts to clean up and beautify the city. As per the Down to Earth report, nearly 3 lakh residents were affected due to G20 preparations. “The Forced Evictions Across India and G20 Events” report prepared by the concerned citizens forum has said that “The demolitions in Tughlaqabad and Mehrauli are possibly linked to the heritage walks being planned for the G20 delegates. The Tughlaqabad demolitions, one of the biggest, have left more than 2,50,000 men, women and children displaced.” Outlook had reported that in April 2023 “close to 1,000 homes were razed in Tughlakabad claiming that the land belonged to the Archaeological Survey of India”. Similarly, it noted that 600 homes were razed in Moochand Basti, and further evictions were carried out in Mehrauli, Yamuna flood plains, and other areas of NCR region.  The Janta camp located at Pragati Maidan, the venue of G20 summit, and a slum cluster at Dhaula Quan were also demolished as the international delegation would traverse along that route. In June 2023, TheWire reported that 40 families were served notice to immediately vacate from the banks of the Yamuna, without specifying any deadline. As per the Quint, since March 2023, on the directives of the Delhi High, the DDA has carried out multiple demolition drives in the Yamuna floodplains. Reuters in its reportage on G20 induced demolitions in the national capital noted the response of the Union Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs Kaushal Kishore as saying that “At least 49 demolition drives in New Delhi between April 1 and July 27 led to nearly 230 acres (93 hectares) of government land being reclaimed”. The Quint on September 7, 2023, published an article citing the parliamentary response of the housing ministry and said that “as many as 13.5 million people live in unauthorised colonies in the national capital”.

Law, Policy and Politics

While most of these demolitions take place under the guise of lawful and legal enforcement to remove illegal structures from the city, the substantive question of rule of law remains unanswered. The courts on their part are seen increasingly reluctant to stop such demolition drives, and even on many occasions directing the agencies to remove ‘illegal’ encroachments. Thus, the agencies often cite court orders or directives as a response when asked about the evictions and demolitions activities, ignoring that on many occasions even a notice is not issued to the affected person before undertaking demolition.

The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) released the policy in 2015 which notes that in-situ rehabilitation in the form of alternative accommodation shall be provided “to those living in JJ of Bastis, either on the same land or in the vicinity within a radius 5 Km. In case of exceptional circumstances, it can be even beyond 5 Km with prior approval of the Board.” But this protective cover extends only to Bastis and Jhuggies that have come up before 2006 and 2015 respectively. The policy maintains that “JJ Bastis which have come up before 01.01.2006 shall not be removed (as per NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011) without providing them alternate housing. Jhuggis which have come up in such JJ Bastis before 01-01-2015 shall not be demolished without providing alternate housing…”. But the same policy also excludes any Basti or Jhuggi that has come up after the said cutoff dates, it notes, “GNCTD shall ensure that no new jhuggi comes up after 01-01- 2015. any jhuggi comes up after this date, the same shall immediately be removed without providing them any alternate housing.”

Importantly, DUSIB was setup as a response to the Supreme Court judgement in Sudama Singh and Others v. Govt. Of Delhi and Others, which ruled that in the context of the MPD (Master Plan for Delhi), “jhuggi dwellers are not to be treated as „secondary‟ citizens. They are entitled to no less an access to basic survival needs as any other citizen. It is the State‟s constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure that if the jhuggi dweller is forcibly evicted and relocated, such jhuggi dweller is not worse off. The relocation has to be a meaningful exercise consistent with the rights to life, livelihood and dignity of such jhuggi dweller.” The verdict further highlighted the need to undertake proper survey to record the jhuggis spread across the city and said that “…since most relocation schemes require proof of residence before a „cut-off date…If these documents are either forcefully snatched away or destroyed (and very often they are) then the jhuggi dweller is unable to establish entitlement to resettlement. Therefore, the exercise of conducting a survey has to be very carefully undertaken and with great deal of responsibility keeping in view the desperate need of the jhuggi dweller for an alternative accommodation.”

But this progressive judgement lost its force in the face of another Delhi High Court judgement delivered in 2022, which held that “only residents of 675 slums listed by the DUSIB and DDA were eligible for rehabilitation under the 2015 policy”, as per the Article 14 report. This verdict also affected another judgement on the Delhi High Court in Ajay Makan v. Union of India which had provided slum residents with constitutional protections from forced and unannounced evictions, Scroll reported. Furthermore, the aforementioned Article 14 report analysed the DUSIB Act and found that as per section 2(g) of the DUSIB Act, “a settlement may be considered a JJ basti only if it comprises at least 50 houses, making smaller slum colonies ineligible for rehabilitation even if residents meet other eligibility criteria.” Following these developments, courts have increasingly refused to intervene in matters of forceful or summary evictions by the public authorities, leaving the petitioners red-faced. Thus, as a result of these policy and legal developments, poor residents in the city find themselves without any strong constitutional or political recourse, with some lawyers and activists even arguing against going to courts in such cases.

Evictions and Elections 2024

As the Delhi votes on May 25 to send 7 MPs to the Lok Sabha, the lower house of the parliament, many who lost their homes in the demolition drives are disillusioned and lack trust in any political party. Speaking with Indian Express, Renu, a voter from South Delhi constituency, expressed her displeasure and said “When the bulldozer arrived, nobody came to help. Nobody stood with us… so, who will we vote for…We lost our belongings in the demolition. I don’t want to vote for any of them…BJP carried out the demolitions, but the AAP government did nothing. Dealers sold the land to us and we took a loan to buy it. We didn’t know it was government land.”

Another voter, Mustaqim, from East Delhi constituency told the reporter that “Modi ji said ‘jahan jhuggi wahan makaan’. Here there’s no jhuggi, no house. The councillor and MLA (AAP Jangpura MLA Praveen Kumar) helped us with the court case. Now we can only hope…”

Both BJP and AAP touted ‘jahan jhuggi wahan makan’ scheme but the slow implementation of the Centre run PM-AWAS (Urban) scheme under which EWS flats are to be handed over to economically weaker section remains lackluster. Importantly, the issue of lack of funds in the hands of jhuggi dwellers makes even these highly subsidised schemes impractical for many. Therefore, even policies like DUSIB’s “Delhi Slum & JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy, 2015” remains ineffective as it requires eligible beneficiaries to pay rupees 1,12,000 + 30000(maintenance) to avail the benefits of alternative housing scheme.

While the opposition AAP and Congress, which are alliance partners, have criticised the Central Government for the spate of demolitions and evictions, the affected voters remain stoically unhappy that no party stood with it when demolitions took place.

The AAP is yet to release its manifesto for the Lok Sabha Election 2024 while Congress and BJP manifestos find no mention on rehabilitating the jhuggies or preventing demolitions.

[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/domicide-must-be-recognised-international-crime-un-expert

Related:

United Against Hate: CJP’s Battle for a Hate-Free Election in 2024! | CJP

Why Modi’s poll histrionics accusing Congress of potentially fracturing away SC/ST quotas to Muslims is a spurious claim?

Several instances of hate speech in March and April mar the election cycle, demonise religious minorities before the polls | CJP

The post As Delhi votes this week for the Lok Sabha 2024 election, those affected by demolitions and evictions lack trust in the parties appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The incident took place on July 17, 2023 after which it had led to the arrests of three people which included two minors. The accused were charged with spitting on Mahakal ki Sawari, a Hindu religious procession which was reportedly passing by their residence. The arrests were reportedly made on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sawan Lot who alleged that Adnan and the two other minors had offended religious sentiments by spitting on the procession. Lot claimed to have submitted videos of the incident as evidence. However, during the court proceedings, the witnesses, including Lot and his friend Ajay Khatri, have decried the claims made in the FIR. Furthermore, Lot has stated in a written statement to the judicial magistrate, that he was misquoted by the police who he claims coerced him into signing papers about which he had no clue. Lot further stated that he was unaware of what was written in the FIR. Ajay Khatri, the other key witness has been claiming that he was one of 40-50 individuals taken to the police station where he signed papers without knowledge of their contents. He also similarly stated that he did not witness the incident and could not identify the accused. A report by the NewsLaundry has noted that both Khatri and Lot are associated with the BJP.

Furthermore, according to news reports, after the arrest last year the authorities in Ujjain had gone forth and reportedly demolished the three-story home owned by Ashraf Hussain Mansoori, the father of the Adnan. Therefore, the house was demolished and was subjected to a disturbing display of cheers and drumbeats from a crowd which had gathered to witness the demolition. The demolition rendered Mansoori’s family, as well as several of those families who rented in the building, homeless. The building and the ground floor shop also served as the family’s sole source of livelihood. The family is now forced to make ends meet after the demolition.

Meanwhile, a report by NewsLaundry attests that the Vishwa Hindu Parishad is not happy with the witnesses turning hostile in the case and has expressed its dissatisfaction with the proceedings.

Related:

UP government fails to appeal against Hathras gang rape judgment acquitting 3 accused – are we surprised?

Chhattisgarh & Maharashtra: SC directs police to ensure no hate speech by BJP MLA Raja Singh & Hindu Jan Jagruti Samiti rallies

Imposters posing as Muslims: A sinister ploy to further stigmatise

‘X’ account of Hindutva Watch withheld in India owing to “legal demands”

The post Witness say police misquoted them as Muslim teenager whose home was demolished by authorities released on bail appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite only being halfway through the second month of the year, evictions and demolition drives across the country are becoming more prevalent. It is no longer about whether the state is governed by the ruling party or not. These demolition drives are aimed at not just religious minorities but also the poor and marginalised who have probably been living on these lands for decades. 

The courts have also seen these cases from a humanitarian angle and stressed upon the need for rehabilitation of those displaced instead of merely labeling them as “encroachers”. As evidenced by the following recent incidents, the state and administration have failed to do so.

The most unfortunate of these recent incidents was the one from Kanpur Dehat where a mother and daughter were burnt alive as they were inside their hutment when the bulldozer came for them. While the police at first claimed that they set themselves on fire, eventually a case of murder was registered against  the SDM and others.

In Assam’s Sonitpur, 2,500 Bengali Muslim families were rendered homeless as a demolition drive was conducted, displacing these families for their lands where they were cultivators.

In UP’s Ghaziabad, in Sahibabad people’s homes were being demolished, allegedly without any notice. In a video posted on social media, a woman can be seen pleading to the police and other people present, to not go ahead but she was being dragged.

This is from #Sahibabad, #Ghaziabad, #UttarPradesh.

People’s Houses are being Demolished here without giving any Notice. When a young Man Raised his Voice regarding the notice, he was taken to the Police Station and Beaten up.#ViralVideo #UPPolice #UPModel pic.twitter.com/nm4hNDJTDX

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 7, 2023

In Jammu & Kashmir, the spate evictions and demolitions began in January after the UT administration issued an order dated January 9 directing all local administrative officials to remove “encroachment” on State Land, including Roshni and Kahcharai (Grazing) land. Since then, the administration, led by the Revenue Department, and Tehsil-level officers are assisted by the Jammu and Kashmir Police to carry out such drives.

At one such demolition drive in Srinagar, locals were seen in a video claiming that no notice was issued to them and that they have genuine documents pertaining to the land.

This is from #Srinagar, #JammuAndKashmir.

Locals alleged authorities of demolishing their homes despite having genuine documents & without any notice.

Such demolitions are being carried throughout the state.

Rights defenders have called it a policy of #Kashmiri dispossession. pic.twitter.com/1nDJn1rSAB

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 5, 2023

A visibly agitated Hindu priest in Jammu was seen on video protesting the eviction drives. He said, the Muslim rulers didn’t harm us. BJP is bulldozing out homes”

Muslims were better rulers, they didn’t harm us. BJP is bulldozing our homes, properties.

– A #Hindu priest in #Jammu over eviction drive.#JammuAndKashmir #BJPGovt #Bulldozer #BulldozerAction pic.twitter.com/ivZ1Hd4YPL

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 17, 2023

in Patna, Bihar, two shopkeepers immolated themselves while protesting their forcible evictions by the Railway Police
 

This is from #Patna #Bihar.

The shopkeepers became agitated over the forcible eviction of the shops by the Railway Police!

Two shopkeepers set themselves on fire!#Bulldozer #BulldozerAction pic.twitter.com/0WWkF6Ahwm

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 16, 2023

In Madhya Pradesh’s Bhaukhedi about 180 homes were demolished and among those demolished were homes built under the Central housing scheme called PM Awas Yojana.

More than 180 homes including #PMAawas demolished in #MadhyaPradesh’s #Bhaukhedi; no compensation offered!#BJPGovt #Bulldozer #BulldozerAction pic.twitter.com/4Cs5DbyTwH

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 17, 2023

In Hyderabad, Telangana, around 150 houses were demolished and the occupants have claimed that no notice was given to them.

As many as 150 houses in the area are being demolished and the people are expressing concern that they have not been serves any prior notices.#Telangana #Hyderabad #Bulldozer #BulldozerAction pic.twitter.com/NKqgjcXpMn

— Hate Detector ? (@HateDetectors) February 17, 2023

related:

Bombay HC seeks policy on old settlements for protected monuments; stays evictions at Vishalgarh

MP: In CM’s Home District, Bulldozers Reduce 20 Homes Built Under PMAY to Rubble

Shutdown Observed in Parts of Kashmir Against Ongoing ‘Eviction’ Drive

Even “encroachers” need to be rehabilitated says Courts

The post Evictions are at an all-time high as bulldozers gain momentum in the country appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bhopal: The year 2016-17 was memorable for 50-year-old Suresh Jain, as his application for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) and toilet scheme, got approval. It took him three years to build a three-bedroom-toilet house for his family of four, after loaning out Rs 1.50 lakh.

Jain is a resident of Bhaukhedi village of Ichhawar tehsil in Sehore district. The village is 53-km away from the state capital, Bhopal, and is the home district of chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan.

A below poverty line (BPL) card beneficiary, Jain, who earns Rs 5,800 a month working as a security guard at a private warehouse, was in a process of paying off that loan. But on the morning of January 30-31, 2023, a fleet of bulldozers, accompanied by policemen, landed at Bhuakhedi village and demolished his home along with 19 other houses built under the PM Awas Yojana or PMAY, labelling them as ‘encroachments’.

“I had been living in that home (demolished) since I was 10 years old,” recalled Jain, while speaking to NewsClick. “I built this house with my sweat and toil and managed to secure benefits under PMAY and the toilet schemes, but in vain.”

#Demolition #PM_Awas

At CM’s Home District Sehore, district Admin razed 20 PM Awas along with 200 other homes and a temple. It was razed for a 25-km long MPRDC’s road project.

It happened two weeks ago 52-km away from Bhopal.

None of them were offered compensation.

1/2 pic.twitter.com/kLAwYk7TPH

— काश/if Kakvi (@KashifKakvi) February 16, 2023

Similarly, the district administration razed the houses of Kailash, Mohan Nath, Dinesh Das and Sankar who were allotted homes under PMAY between 2016-17 and 2020-21.

Apart from PM Awas houses and toilets, the district administration partially demolished 200 homes, shops and a few temples built on either side of Bhuakhedi village’s main road. 

The homes were demolished to construct an 18-km-long two-lane road worth Rs 25 crore under the Bhuakhedi-Amlaha road project. The Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) last year floated a tender for the road to connect Ichhawar town directly with the Indore-Bhopal highway, which passes through the middle of Bhuakhedi village.

“Over 20 homes were demolished and 200 homes were partially razed down for a road project as it was constructed on government land,” Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vishnu Prasad told NewsClick. “Since it was an encroachment, MPRDC cannot offer any compensation to the families according to the laid down laws,” he added.

Prasad further said: “According to the work plan, the road needs 52 feet width for the construction. Yet, we have only acquired 40-42 feet of land to prevent maximum damage.”

Rebuked by the officials after demolishing his PMAY home, Jain has taken shelter in a creaking two-room anganwadi centre for the past two weeks. The room neither has electricity nor water or toilet facilities. “We were already struggling to make ends meet. I have two daughters, and losing a home at this age has stunned us. It doesn’t matter who is at fault here, it is we who are suffering in the end.”

The district administration not only razed homes built under PM Awas Yojana but also razed those houses built on government-allocated pattas.

Suneel Kumar Verma (36), a bus driver, completed his four-room PM Awas home with toilet in 2021-22 on a 600 sq feet patta allocated by the government in 2013. He earns Rs 5500 a month for driving a school bus, and took a loan of Rs 2 lakh on high interest. Yet, his three rooms were razed, labelled as ‘encroachment.’

An outraged Verma questioned officials: “How is it possible to demolish a home that is built on government allocated patta and with the financial assistance from PM Awas Yojana?”

The officials, who evaded his question in the beginning, dubbed it a “mistake” when villagers demanded a reply. “It’s a mistake of the block secretary and staff. But we have instructions to clear the land for the road,” they told irate villagers, according to some eyewitness.    

An enraged Verma said: “Jab sarkar kahe, patta de do. Jab sarkare kahe, PM Awas or toilet de do. Aur jab sarkar kahe, bulldozer le kar sab ujaad do. What a system! ” (when the government wishes, you give patta; when the government says, you allot PMAY and toilets; and when the government says demolish everything, you land up with bulldozers)

Now, Verma’s four room home has shrunk to two rooms, without a toilet.

The villagers claimed that the district administration also demolished a Jain temple but refrained from bulldozing Ram Temple built on the middle of the road after facing opposition from villagers. To save the Ram temple, the administration held a slew of meetings and razed a house built under PMAY, claimed Manisha Jain, wife of Suresh Jain.

This is not the first case when a home built under PMAY was was demolished terming it “illegal.”

Last year, a day after the Khargone communal violence on April 11, the district administration demolished 49 properties along with a house built under PMAY.

When contacted, Rajesh Banasiya (40), deputy sarpanch of the village, told NewsClick that a majority of the residents are BPL card holders who had been living there for over five-six decades. 

Seeing fellow villagers homeless has Banasiya. Demanding compensation, he said: “How can the administration demolish homes built under PM Awas and rebuke the beneficiary without compensation? We are not against construction of the road, but the affected families must be compensated, as they belong to the marginalised section.” 

“When officials marked the area for demolition a month ago, villagers submitted a memorandum addressing the chief minister, district collector, SDM and local MLAs to prevent the demolition of over 150 homes and two temples falling in the marked area. The villagers also offered substitute land to divert the road and prevent the demolition, but it was turned down,” he told NewsClick.

“A memorandum was submitted to the district administration for compensation but didn’t get any response,” he added.

The administration also razed the two-room home and a government-aided toilet of 72-year-old Devkaran. He said: “We have only one room left, we have put all our belongings in it, and there is no place left even to sit. When I asked the SDM, ‘where will we live now?’, he said “we do not know all that, we have to make a 52 feet road. Your house was built illegally so it got demolished.”

Like others, Devkaran, who is a BPL card holder, is also hoping for compensation. But he says “SDM sir ne hame kaha hai koi compensation nahi milega” (SDM said we will not get any compensation).

When NewsClick reached out to PWD Minister Gopal Bhargava and Sehore district collector Praveen Singh for their response over the PMAY demolition, they were not available for comment.

But SDM Vishnu Prasad said: “After the tender, it wasn’t feasible to divert the route, as suggested by the villagers. Since it was an encroachment on government land, the department can’t pay compensation. But we are chalking out a plan to accommodate close to 20 families who have lost their homes in the eviction drive.”

He said: “Many have built houses beyond permissible limits. Therefore, we only demolished that portion.”

When questioned over the PMAY demolition, the SDM claimed that only five-six such homes were razed, while the others were partially demolished. But, deputy sarpanch Banasiya contradicted, saying many of the homes that were partially razed have no toilets. “Many families living in a one or two-room house have developed cracks which need money for repairs,” he added.

Many like Krishna Bai, a widow, who lives alone in the village, lost her home and a shop, her only source of income, in the eviction drive.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post MP: In CM’s Home District, Bulldozers Reduce 20 Homes Built Under PMAY to Rubble appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bombay High Court has expressed its dismay over the manner in which the Railways dispensed with the factor of rehabilitation after demolition of unauthorised structures, despite Supreme Court directions. The bench of Justices Neela Gokhale and GS Patel, on February 8, restrained the Railways from carrying out any further demolition before the next date and were displeased that the Railways did not see that the problem was  of human displacement which sometimes is beyond one’s imagination. “It has to be addressed in a more considered fashion than by merely deploying bulldozers on the site,” the bench said.

At the Supreme Court as well a case against demolition played out today but by the time the case came up for hearing, the demolition of a night shelter had already taken place. Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan first appeared before the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud and mentioned that the demolition of the Sarai Kale Khan Night Shelter was about to take place. The bench allowed him to mention the matter before a bench of Justices Dipankar Dutta and Hrishikesh Roy. When he approached the bench a hearing had already commenced and by the time the hearing ended, the demolitions had already taken place. When the bench was informed, the bench said that since the urgency element had ceased, they will consider the question of rehabilitation at the next hearing, scheduled for February 22. The bench allowed Bhushan to file a fresh application before the next date.

Bombay High Court

The high Court in its order stressed upon the directions given by the Supreme

In Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal Vs. GOI (SLP (c) Diary No 19714/2021), the Supreme Court in its order dated December 16, 2021 had given it strong opinion on Railways evading rehabilitation for illegal occupants of Railway land. The court had pointed out that the Railways could have used it resources to safeguard its property and yet it allowed such illegal occupation and thus held the Railways equally responsible  for the situation; “and for which reason, it is also equally liable to provide some support to the persons likely to be affected by the removal of their structures.” The Railways had tried to brush off the pleas for rehabilitation as not its liability and  said that “the primary responsibility to ensure that no encroachment takes place on any property is that of the local Government and also of the State Government, in equal measure.”

In a following order dated July 14, 2022 the court was informed that the Western Railway property and in relation to the Surat Municipal Corporation had been cleared. The court was also informed that the eligible claimants will be accommodated/ rehabilitated as per the Prime Minister Awas Yojna Scheme.

The Supreme Court had issued the following directions:

• For land owned by Railways where there are illegal occupants, notice to vacate be given 6 weeks in advance and within 1 week (from the date of the order i.e. December 16, 2021)

• Before commencing the process of eviction and removal of the structures, the Collector of the concerned District must ensure that necessary details about the names and number of persons occupying the concerned structure, including their identity and profile should be duly recorded, 

• In a following order dated July 14, 2022 the court was informed that the Western Railway property and in relation to the Surat Municipal Corporation had been cleared. The court was also informed that the eligible claimants will be accommodated/ rehabilitated as per the Prime Minister Awas Yojna Scheme.

• The High Court then pointed out that a notice for demolition was issued, but no rehabilitation scheme was mentioned.

• Western Railways as well as the local government and State government to be jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per month per demolished structure for a period of six months from the date of demolition to each family

• If the local government has a rehabilitation scheme, the affected persons may apply for being rehabilitated under the said scheme, if eligible and subject to verification of eligibility. The local Government may provide them suitable residential accommodation in lieu of rehabilitation owing to demolition of their structure.

• In absence of rehabilitation scheme, persons likely to be affected by the demolition, can apply for allocation of residential premises under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna Scheme, which application be processed not later than six months from the date of its receipt

• The eligible persons are allotted accommodation wherever available in the same or even in neighbouring districts.

• since the Railways have power to initiate civil/criminal action against the unauthorized occupants on the Railway property, must resort to those proceedings against the concerned persons immediately after it is brought to the notice to the concerned official of the Railways

The Supreme Court order dated December 16, 2021 may be read here:

The High Court then pointed out that a notice for demolition was issued, but no rehabilitation scheme was mentioned and the above directions were not followed by Western Railways till date.

“These are not even notices under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. They are simply eviction notices.” (para 4)

The court also said that it was unclear whether the Western Railways had taken up the matter of rehabilitation with the local government which could be either the BMC or the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).

The court sought to know whether Western Railways, MMRDA and MCGM have in place any rehabilitation policy or system, and what the eligibility criteria are for the same.

The court further said that labelling the illegal occupants was not enough.

“Throughout, we bear in mind that merely labelling these persons as “encroachers” is not going to answer the problem. This is a serious problem in the city and it is a problem of human displacement. Sometimes, the scale of the displacement is beyond the imagination. It has to be addressed in a more considered fashion than by merely deploying bulldozers on the site.” (para 7)

The court also expressed its displeasure over the demolition report dated February 7 which stated that the debris generated after demolition and unserviceable released material was dumped in a low lying area as the court presumed that it will get washed into the Arabian Sea. The court also noted that the report did not indicate whether any survey was done of the 101 unauthorized structures which were demolished. “In no sense is this in keeping with even the letter, let alone the spirit, of the Supreme Court orders referred to above,” said the court  (para 9)

The then directed,

“No further demolitions are to be carried out until the next date in contravention of the Supreme Court order anywhere on Western Railway lands in Greater Mumbai.” (para 10)

The court listed the matter for March 1, however noting the anxiety of the railways regarding the long gap in hearing and the embargo on demolition, the court gave liberty to the Railways to mention the matter for an earlier date with notice to the petitioners and other respondents as well.

The Bombay High Court order may be read here.

Related:

UP: Demolition drive goes awry, mother daughter burnt alive

Jammu and Kashmir on Edge as Fear of ‘Eviction’ Haunts Residents

Disturbing images emerge from Srinagar as people protest the ongoing demolition drive

The post Even “encroachers” need to be rehabilitated says Courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.