On 17 August 2024, Rashid Khan’s single storey house in the Khanjipeer locality of Udaipur was levelled to dust by bulldozers operating on the instructions of the Udaipur district administration. Khan, an autorickshaw driver, had built the house after many years of savings. The reason behind the destruction was ostensibly retributive. A day before, the 15-year-old son of Khan’s tenant had allegedly stabbed a Hindu boy in a classroom dispute. Soon after the incident, Hindutva groups had called for ‘bulldozer action’. Within hours, the Rajasthan Forest Department had issued a notice stating that the building where the boy lived encroached on protected forest land.
These details were narrated in the Supreme Court on 2 September by Senior Advocate C.U. Singh. Rashid Khan’s case had come up in hearings in front of a Division Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan.
Reportedly, since 2022, more than 150,000 homes across the country have been razed through bulldozer action, leaving 738,000 people homeless. Many of these cases have a common factor—the demolition has followed a disconnected incident or dispute involving the resident or property owner. The government has promptly issued notices of encroachment with respect to the accused’s property, using the allegation as a justification to deploy bulldozers. The destruction is carried out before the accused has an opportunity to challenge the allegations through the criminal justice system. From reports, it’s also clear that ‘bulldozer justice’ has disproportionately targeted Muslims. Government spokespersons and ministers have hailed and publicly supported ‘bulldozer justice’.
On 18 April 2022, following demolitions in Jahangirpuri in Uttar Pradesh, in the wake of communal violence in the region, Jamiat Ulama I Hind, a Deobandi Islamic scholars organisation, filed a writ in the Supreme Court challenging bulldozer actions. On 20 April 2022, a bench led by former Chief Justice N.V. Ramana ordered that a stay be imposed against the demolitions in Jahangirpuri. Despite this, demolitions continued in the neighbourhood till noon. A day later, Brinda Karat, a Member of Parliament, filed another writ challenging bulldozer action. On 21 April 2022, a bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Gavai ordered that the stay on demolitions would continue.
Brinda’s petition was eventually tagged with the Jamiat Ulama I Hind’s plea. On 6 May 2022, the Court issued notice to the Union of India, and the governments of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Since then, the Court had conducted only a few substantive hearings. These petitions were heard over two days earlier this month.
After Rashid Khan’s home was demolished in August 2024, an intervention petition filed by him has been clubbed with the hearings. On 30 August 2024, Senior Advocate C.U. Singh and Advocate Fauzia Shakil mentioned two applications seeking urgent relief against bulldozer action, requesting they be heard alongside Karat’s petition.
What have the High Courts said about bulldozer action?
Since 2022, various High Courts have taken a stance against bulldozer action and provided directions. Some of these court directions were in cases where the affected party hasn’t been accused of a different crime—the common thread running through these matters is an allegation of executive collusion.
In August 2022, in Shakarpur Slum Union v DDA, a single-judge bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad in the Delhi High Court ruled that the Delhi Development Authority cannot remove alleged encroachers with “a bulldozer at their doorstep early in the morning or late in the evening” without giving notice. The Court had observed that “it is not uncommon to find a Jhuggi dweller, with the bull-dozer at the doorstep, desperately trying to save whatever precious little belongings and documents they have, which could perhaps testify to the fact that the Jhuggi dweller resided at that place.”
In December 2022, after a woman’s house in Bihar was demolished by the police without following due procedure, allegedly at the instance of a land mafia, the Patna High Court chastised the police. “Whom do you represent, the state or some private person?” Justice Sandeep Kumar exclaimed. “Tamasha bana diya ki kisi ka bhi ghar bulldozer se tod denge.” You are making theatrics out of demolishing someone’s home with a bulldozer.
In July 2022, the Gauhati High Court initiated a suo motu case after the houses of five men were bulldozed in Nagaon, Assam. The men were accused of setting fire to a police station. In January 2023, a Division Bench of Chief Justice R.M. Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saikia directed the state government to pay compensation to the affected parties.
In the Supreme Court in July 2023, R.K. Raizada, Additional Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh, argued for the continuation of an Allahabad High Court order staying the bail of a person accused of bulldozing another person’s home with the help of the police. In that hearing, Justice S.K. Kaul had remarked: “So you agree that bulldozing houses is wrongful?…Should we record your statement that bulldozing houses is wrong? You just now argued that bulldozing houses is wrong.” Raizada responded that his arguments were limited only to the case.
What has the Supreme Court said in September 2024?
Since the filing of the urgent relief application at the start of September, the Court has heard Jamiat Ulama I Hind’s petition on bulldozer action twice this month. On 2 September, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, submitted an affidavit stating that the state government had taken a clear stance against illegal demolitions. He clarified that notice was supplied to the accused in all cases where demolitions were undertaken. However, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Jamiat Ulama I Hind, had retorted that after the Jahangirpuri violence, the authorities had targeted the homes of those they believed had instigated riots. C.U. Singh had also narrated autorickshaw driver Rashid Khan’s plight to the Court that day.
Justice Gavai exclaimed, “How can a house be demolished just because he is accused? It can’t be demolished even if he’s a convict….” The Bench suggested that “pan-India guidelines” should be framed on bulldozer actions.
On 14 September 2024, Jamiat Ulama I Hind submitted its suggestions for the guidelines. The suggestions included a requirement that the show-cause notice should have pertinent details and a clear reference to the legal provisions under which the demolition was taking place. The show-cause notice should also be pasted on the property. It further provided that the notice of demolition should provide a mechanism to appeal within at least 60 days of the date of the notice. Another suggestion was to appoint a judicial officer as claim commissioner for demolition cases.
When the bench reconvened fifteen days later on the issue, on 17 September, Singh apprised the judges that the building of an individual accused of stone pelting had been levelled, despite the Court’s expressing its displeasure about such actions. Solicitor General Mehta, on his part, argued that the accused had first been served notice about the demolition in 2022, and had engaged in criminal activity since. This was challenged by the petitioner counsels, who argued that there was no connection between the demolition and the accusations, suggesting that the demolition could not have been framed as a legally just response to the alleged offences. Mehta then suggested to the bench that they were being influenced by the rhetoric that bulldozer actions particularly target Muslim communities. “The narrative has appealed to your lordships,” he said.
“After 2 September, there has been grandstanding and justification,” Justice Viswanathan said, “Should this happen in our country? Should the Election Commission be noticed? We will formulate directives.” He was likely referring to a statement by A.K. Sharma, Uttar Pradesh’s power minister, who had defended bulldozer actions on 5 September. Justice Viswanathan also clarified that the Court was aloof to “outside noise” and “at this point”, it did not want to get into the conversation about a particular community being targeted.
The bench then passed an interim order stating that no demolition can take place across the country without seeking the Supreme Court’s permission. It clarified that the scope of the order would not include drives against illegal encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines and water bodies, or in cases where a demolition has been already ordered by a court.
On 27 September 2024, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, filed an intervention application in the matter, contending that bulldozer demolition was an “aggravated form of human rights violation.” The application requested the Court to permit Rajagopal to submit recommendations for the framing of pan-India guidelines from an international human rights law perspective.
The halt on demolitions remains in effect until tomorrow, 1 October, when the matter is listed to be heard again.
Original article Related: Bulldozer Injustice in India Photo: Rashid Khan’s single storey house in the Khanjipeer locality of Udaipur was levelled, 17 August 2024. Source: SCO.| Themes |
| • Demographic manipulation • Destruction of habitat • Discrimination • ESC rights • Forced evictions • Housing rights • Legal frameworks • National • Property rights • Public policies • Religious |
