In recent years, India has witnessed a growing trend of demolitions targeting Muslim homes and places of worship, often framed as “punitive” actions following communal violence. These demolitions, widely described as “bulldozer justice,” have occurred in several states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Delhi, and Assam.
The demolitions often take place without due process, such as prior notice or legal recourse for the affected families. Muslim properties are frequently singled out for destruction after incidents of communal unrest, with the government justifying the demolitions as actions against “illegal constructions.” They are effectively collective punishments disproportionately affecting the Muslim community, leading to forced evictions and severe human rights violations.
The use of bulldozers, particularly those of the JCB brand, has become symbolic of these actions. Amnesty International and other rights groups have urged both Indian authorities and equipment manufacturers to address these human rights abuses, as many affected families remain homeless and without compensation.
How can this happen in a country that prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, guided by one of the most inspiring and comprehensive constitutions? Is the law truly equal for everyone, or does it serve some more favourably than others? The fundamental principles of democracy and justice seem to be at odds with the growing perception that the law is selectively applied, protecting certain groups while oppressing others. This raises troubling questions about the very nature of equality and fairness in the legal system.
Selective and Wrongful Application of Rules
Bulldozer demolitions are carried out using selective enforcement of civic laws (for example: unauthorized construction, encroachment, violation of building codes and municipal regulations) to justify razing properties.
The demolition of activist Javed Mohammad’s house in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, exposes the diabolical use of the so-called “rule of law” to carry out what can only be termed as “bulldozer injustice”. Despite Supreme Court rulings affirming the “right to shelter” as a fundamental right under the Constitution, Javed’s house was demolished without proper legal procedures. The state claimed the house was illegal and a notice had been served, yet it had been collecting taxes on the property, implicating itself in perpetuating the so-called illegality. Moreover, the demolition occurred on a Sunday, after the notice was posted late Saturday night, leaving no opportunity for a legal challenge.
Erosion of the Rule of Law
Due process is circumvented, with demolitions happening before investigations conclude or charges are filed. This goes against natural justice principles like the presumption of innocence and individual responsibility for crimes. For example, in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, in February 2024, a mosque and madrasa were demolished by the state government, even though the case was still pending in court. The government claimed the structures were built on forest land, but the rapid demolition without legal process or notice stirred tensions.
Muslim homes in the area were also disproportionately targeted, while Hindu temples with similar land-use issues remained untouched. This incident was part of a broader strategy by the state’s chief minister to turn the region into a Hindu religious stronghold, known as “Devbhoomi,” further indicating religious bias in enforcement. (Ref: Bulldozer Raj and the Constitutional Order by PUCL dated 01 March, 2024).
This trend of demolishing the homes of what has been assiduously built in public perception as the “enemy-within” is akin to the growing propensity of the police to do “fake encounters” of the accused who become ‘politically inconvenient’ or whose elimination is bound to be applauded by the public thirsty for ‘instant justice’.
Judiciary’s Response and Civic Accountability
There are already a host of Supreme Court guidelines pertaining to demolitions, namely -allegations of involvement in a crime do not justify the demolition of a property; such claims must be proven through the appropriate legal process in a court of law. No person’s property should be destroyed simply because they or a family member are accused of criminal activities. Furthermore, even in instances of illegal construction, demolitions should follow established legal protocols.
Despite these guidelines, the apex court had to express worry about the unchecked demolitions happening in the country and emphasized the importance of judicial oversight. Last month, the SC placed a nationwide ban on demolition activities, stating that no demolitions, whether of those accused or convicted of a crime, should take place without the court’s clear permission.
In response to a series of petitions contesting the recent increase in demolitions aimed at properties associated with individuals accused of crimes, a bench of Justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan stated in no uncertain terms, “We direct that till the next date of hearing, there will be no demolition without taking leave of this court. We are not going to issue guidelines, but we will be issuing directives. We will streamline the procedure. We are not on community A or B, or any narrative in so far as directions are concerned. Even if there is one instance of illegal demolition irrespective of the religion, it is against the ethos of the Constitution.”
Need for Legal Reform
There are numerous suggestions to curb “Bulldozer Injustice”. Legal reforms, including the introduction of laws where officials could be held personally accountable for reckless actions, might limit these extra-legal actions. Stronger legal safeguards in urban laws are necessary to prevent arbitrary demolitions and protect individual rights.
The administration must be forced to conduct adequate surveys before carrying out demolitions, ensuring that basic procedural protocols, such as providing sufficient advance notices, are followed by the authorities.
Additionally, comprehensive pan-India guidelines should be incorporated into relevant legislation and municipal rules to establish proper procedures during the pre-demolition, demolition, and post-demolition phases. To protect the fundamental human right to shelter, the burden of proof should be shifted to the authorities to justify any demolition and displacement.
Furthermore, an independent committee, including judicial and civil society representatives, should be formed to review the legality of proposed demolitions. Lastly, proper guidelines for the rehabilitation of innocent victims from the families of the accused should be developed, in line with international human rights standards that emphasize the right to adequate housing and compensation for forced evictions.
Celebrated lawyer and activist, Prashant Bhushan correctly said, “What is being presented as justice is actually a bulldozer’s destruction of the rule of law.” It is time we all stood up to prevent that destruction.