Bulldozer Justice & Kunal Kamra: States exploit loopholes, defy Supreme Court directive

In November 2024, human rights group Amnesty International welcomed the Supreme Court (SC) judgment, which seemingly applied brakes on the de facto policy of demolishing people’s homes as a form of extra-judicial punishment – euphemistically referred to as bulldozer justice.

That month, extra-judicial demolitions were declared illegal by a Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan. The judgement provided detailed guidelines for municipal authorities to follow when demolishing any property. It fixed personal responsibility on the officials carrying out such actions.

`Bulldozer justice’ is a term alluding to the use of bulldozers as a political tool and symbol in politics, particularly in Uttar Pradesh under chief minister Yogi Adityanath, where the heavy machinery was deployed to demolish houses of those who protested and were accused of rioting, often without following the process established by law.

In the aftermath of the SC order, prominent political parties, rights groups, concerned citizens and others hailed the apex court judgement that disapproved of actions, which disproportionately targeted Muslims.

That early enthusiasm, however, has given way to a more realistic assessment. States, particularly those ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), continue to carry on, as if the Supreme Court directive never existed.

*** Earlier this week, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation sent a team to the hotel that houses the studio where Kunal Kamra shot his now-controversial stand-up comedy show in which he took a jibe at Maharashtra’s Deputy Chief Minister and, for that, was targeted by a mob — the BMC team carried out an inspection of the site and got an “unauthorised” shed pulled down.

*** In March 2025, the Nagpur municipal authorities bulldozed portions of the home of Fahim Khan, a person accused of involvement in the riots that broke out in the city on March 17, over the burning of Mughal emperor Aurungzeb’s effigy. Hours later, the Bombay High Court stayed the demolition order, effectively halting the demolition of allegedly illegal portions of the residence of another accused, Yusuf Sheikh. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court intervened, issuing a stay on the demolitions and criticising the administration for its `high-handedness.’

*** On the night of February 23 this year, a Muslim man’s house and shop in the Malvan town of Maharashtra’s Sindhudurg district were demolished allegedly without any prior notice by civic authorities, charged with being illegal structures. The man alleged that the demolition was punitive retribution after a FIR was registered against him and his wife, accusing their son of shouting anti-India slogans during a cricket match between India and Pakistan on February 23.

*** On February 9, the municipal council of Hata in Uttar Pradesh demolished portions of the Madni Masjid. The authorities allegedly did not grant the mosque management a prior hearing. A petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking contempt of court proceedings against the authorities for violating the apex court directives. The section of the mosque that was allegedly beyond the sanctioned plan could have been regularised legally, said the petitioners. The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter on February 17 and stayed further demolition of the mosque.

*** In January 2025, a similar contempt petition was filed before the court for the demolition of a factory belonging to a Muslim family in Sambhal in Uttar Pradesh by the executive authorities, allegedly without prior notice or giving the family the opportunity for a hearing, as prescribed in law. However, the court on February 7 directed the petitioner to approach the Allahabad High Court instead.

*** On March 3, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking contempt action against the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for demolishing three houses and a shed belonging to Muslim persons accused in a criminal case without allegedly following due procedure. Instead, the court directed the petitioner to move the Gujarat High Court.

*** In Punjab this year (where there is an AAP government) , the police demolished the homes of alleged drug peddlers on the grounds that the properties had been acquired with the proceeds of drug trading. On March 1, a PIL was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking the implementation of the Supreme Court’s order barring illegal demolitions and that action against the alleged proceeds of drug trade be taken as per law.

‘Disregard for SC order’

The continuation of the regime of illegal punitive demolitions of property signals a disregard for the Supreme Court’s November 13 order and for rule of law, say lawyers, who know the cases well.

Points out Delhi-based Advocate on Record Parasnath Singh, who had filed the contempt petition for the Muslim persons whose properties were demolished in Ahmedabad.

“These demolitions show that the state is not showing due deference to the Supreme Court’s directions,” adding, “such impunity cannot be allowed in a democracy with rule of law.”

Asked why the executive was flagrantly violating the apex court orders, Singh counters; “The SC must enforce order. If the court is not seen as being serious, how can you expect the government to be serious?’

In India, the law does not permit properties to be demolished as a punitive measure. Despite that, the practice has become widespread, particularly in BJP-ruled states, with a mix of public backing and indifference. Between April and June 2022, the authorities in four BJP-ruled states and one AAP-ruled state bulldozed 128 structures, mostly belonging to Muslims, according to Amnesty International.

SC guidelines on demolitions

In 2022, three PILs challenged this in the Supreme Court. In November 2024, the court issued detailed guidelines about the conditions under which demolitions could be conducted, according to which, no demolition can proceed without a show-cause notice being issued 15 days in advance. In addition, the person or entity concerned should be given a personal hearing. The final order must address the arguments of the affected party, regularisation options and establish the need for demolition.

Parties affected are to be given 15 days to appeal before the action is executed. If the owner does not remove the unauthorised construction within 15 days, the authorities may proceed with the demolition, provided there is no stay from a higher authority.

If demolitions do take place, they must be video recorded, with reports submitted to the municipal commissioner and posted publicly. Officers conducting unlawful demolitions bear personal responsibility for restoring the property and paying compensation to its owners, the SC observed.

Many laws offer loopholes – should someone be interested – and apparently administrations in BJP-ruled states are. The guidelines do not apply to unauthorised structures on public places such as roads, footpaths or near water bodies and cases of court-ordered demolitions. This exception for encroachments on public land has left significant gaps for the authorities to continue to arbitrarily demolish homes.

Well-known human rights lawyer Colin Gonsalves believes the SC should not have sent back the cases to the high courts (HC), given that the record of some high courts in the country is far from satisfactory.

“While the SC directives were progressive, the decision to send all the bulldozer cases to high courts meant that such cases were at the mercy of those courts. And while there are many liberal Chief Justices of HCs, there are many who have lost the faith of the people. According to me, this is a case which should have been monitored by the SC till the end. That never happened.”

Clearly, until punitive action is initiated against civil and police officials responsible for such actions – as decreed by the apex court – political parties would be more and more emboldened to defy the country’s highest court.