Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second term, the use of bulldozers has become a prominent symbol of state repression, particularly in BJP-ruled states. Hundreds of citizens, often from specific communities, have been targeted by this heavy-handed approach. However, recent observations by the Supreme Court offer a glimmer of hope that authorities might reconsider their reliance on “bulldozer justice” and adopt a more balanced approach.
The Supreme Court’s observations came in response to a series of petitions, including a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), questioning the legality of demolishing homes belonging to individuals accused of crimes. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan expressed strong concerns, stating, “How can anybody’s house be demolished only because he is an accused?”
They further emphasized, “Even if he is a convict, it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.”
The court accepted petitions on behalf of Rashid Khan from Udaipur and Mohammad Hussain from Jaura, whose homes were recently demolished by bulldozer operations. These petitions, filed by the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), highlighted incidents in Madhya Pradesh’s Jaura town and Rajasthan’s Udaipur city, where houses were demolished without following proper legal procedures.
In Udaipur, despite Rashid Khan’s innocence, the house of one of his tenants was demolished due to accusations against the tenant’s son. Similarly, in Jaura, part of Mohammad Hussain’s father’s property was destroyed due to accusations against his son. These cases exemplify the blatant misuse of state power.
The APCR released two scathing fact-finding reports on these incidents, exposing the horrifying reality of state-sanctioned violence and extrajudicial punishments in India. The reports, titled “State-Sanctioned Mobocracy: How State Machinery Fuels Communal Agendas and Extrajudicial Punishments” and “Bulldozing Dissent: Disproportionate State Crackdown on Muslim Protestors,” document the egregious use of state machinery for communal retaliation rather than justice.
Wasiq Nadim Khan, national secretary of APCR, noted that this was the first time the Supreme Court accepted such petitions. Previously, the court had declined to consider similar cases, suggesting that the petitioners approach the relevant high courts. The APCR was able to persuade two victims to come forward to seek justice, resulting in this landmark observation.
The APCR’s intervention applications, on behalf of Mohammad Hussain and Rashid Khan, were linked to a 2022 PIL against bulldozer operations in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri locality, which had been brought by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind(M) and CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat.
After mob-lynching, bulldozers have become another weapon of state repression, particularly against a specific community. Civil society groups have pointed out that recent demolitions in Udaipur and Madhya Pradesh are just two instances where bulldozers have been used as extrajudicial weapons, often targeting Muslims’ homes, businesses, and places of worship.
Wajahat Habibullah, a prominent civil society member and former Chief Information Commissioner of India, referred to the APCR’s fact-finding reports and emphasized that administrative actions ostensibly aimed at enforcing the law have primarily targeted properties of Muslims. He highlighted the case in Udaipur, where an innocent working-class family’s home was demolished following an altercation between students that escalated into communal rioting. Despite the property owner not being involved, his home was destroyed.
Habibullah also mentioned the Chhatarpur incident, where Haji Shahzad Ali, a prominent Muslim and former Vice President of the Congress Party in Chhatarpur, had his bungalow bulldozed and three cars wrecked by authorities on false accusations of stone-pelting during protests. The area now lives in fear due to such actions.
“Bulldozer justice is now before the apex court, which has put sharp questions to the government seeking an explanation under law for what is an overtly illegal activity. This gives hope that at least the basic principle of common law will be upheld and equal rights for all citizens safeguarded,” Habibullah said.
He also criticized the National Minority Commission and the National Human Rights Commission for their silence on these issues.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing JUH(M)in court, highlighted recent demolitions in Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh. He cited a case in Udaipur where a Muslim father’s home was demolished because of an altercation involving his son at school. Dave questioned the legality of such actions, particularly when municipal laws were used as a pretext for these demolitions.
Senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, also representing JUH(M), argued that such actions challenge the rule of law, especially when carried out against individuals merely suspected of crimes. He emphasized the need for effective guidelines to prevent such incidents and hold officials accountable.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the governments of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. The court also hinted that it might issue guidelines restricting bulldozer operations for undue demolitions.
According to Housing and Land Rights Network’s latest report, in the last two years as many as 1.5 lakhs homes were bulldozed rendering 7 lakhs people homeless. The report says these demolition drives carried out mostly in BJP-governed states with Muslim community particular target.