‘Bulldozer justice’ now illegal in India

“You can be homesick at home, you know?”

That is the feeling that Afreen Fatima, an activist from the northern Indian city of Prayagraj, experiences every now and then.

In the summer of 2022, Ms Fatima’s childhood home – a two-storey yellow-brick house in the bustling depths of the city – was was demolished by the authorities at night.

The house was demolished after her father, a local politician named Javed Mohammad, was arrested and named as the “main conspirator” of a Muslim protest that had turned violent.

He denies the charges and has never been found guilty of any crime related to the June 2022 protests.

The family is just one of many at the mercy of so-called “bulldozer justice” – in which authorities quickly demolish the homes of those accused of crimes – but hopefully one of the last.

On Wednesday, India’s Supreme Court banned the practice, which has been on the rise in recent years, especially in states governed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Although the victims include Hindu families, critics say the action mainly targets India’s roughly 200 million Muslims, especially after religious violence or protests – a charge the BJP denies.

Chief ministers of several states have linked such destruction to their government’s tough stance on crime. Officially, however, the reason given is that these structures were built illegally.

Experts have repeatedly questioned this, saying that there is no legal justification for it and that there is no point in punishing someone for an alleged crime using laws intended for someone else.

Ms. Fatima says that during the 20 months Mr. Mohammad spent in jail (he was granted bail earlier this year), she and her family moved from home in the city twice.

It took some effort, but they finally feel in place. Still, there are times when their new home feels strangely unfamiliar to her, she says, like an “adopted space” that hasn’t been lived in enough.

“It’s not the same. I spent most of my life in our old house. There are no memories here, it feels empty,” she says.

So when the court read its verdict this week, Ms Fatima hoped there would finally be some closure.

But the outcome turned out to be bittersweet.

For while the court has banned authorities from arbitrarily demolishing the homes and businesses of those accused or convicted of crimes, there was no mention of any form of redress for families like Ms. Fatima’s, who have been victimized in the past of such destruction.

“We welcome the judgment, but what about those of us who have already lost our homes?” she says.

The practice had become commonplace: in 2022, authorities in five states bulldozed 128 buildings in just three months ‘as punishment’. a report from Amnesty International shows.

In its order, which ran to over 95 pages, the court came down heavily on the state governments, saying it cannot “become a judge and decide that an accused is guilty and therefore punish him”.

Handing out such a punishment “reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, in which might was right,” the verdict added.

The court then issued a set of guidelines, making it mandatory for authorities to give a resident at least fifteen days’ notice before demolishing an illegal structure, and to publicly explain the reason for the demolition. Under Indian law, all government officials will also be held personally responsible if a demolition is carried out unlawfully, the judgment said.

Rights groups, lawyers and opposition leaders have hailed the order as a “turning point” in tackling the unfair practice that has gone unchecked for years. “Late is the hour for these guidelines to appear – but better late than never!” said Delhi-based lawyer Gautam Bhatia.

Govind Mathur, a judge and former chief justice of a high court, agrees that the order does not mention anything about the victims, but adds that “no claim for compensation by such persons will be limited”.

“If an act is illegal, the victim can always demand compensation. The injustice committed remains an injustice and the costs must be paid by the offenders,” he says.

The order, Justice Mathur added, is a “strong message to the state machinery not to align itself with the political bosses but to act in accordance with the law.”

However, Ms Fatima points out that the reality is not that simple.

It has been more than two years since her family first challenged the demolition in a high court. But there hasn’t been a single hearing, she says.

She still remembers the day it all happened. Bystanders held on to the corner to watch as the excavator landed on their house. Many of them had cameras and phones with them. Ms Fatima, who watched the demolition on her own phone from a relative’s home, remembers feeling numb.

She thought about her room and the enormous amount of souvenirs and furniture stored there. There were stories everywhere: precious everyday memories, like the time she spent with her sister and the lively family conversations around the dinner table. “That was all gone,” she says.

While Ms. Fatima’s family has been able to rebuild their lives in some measure, others say they are still in limbo.

“We are practically on the streets, with nothing and no one,” says Reshma, a daily wage worker in the state of Rajasthan. In September, Reshma’s house in Udaipur city was demolished on illegal trespassing charges, a day after her eight-year-old brother allegedly stabbed his classmate.

The child was taken into custody and sent to a youth home, while his father was arrested on charges of incitement to murder. Since then, Reshma, her mother and sister have lived in a small slum on the outskirts of the city.

For them, the court’s ruling is meaningless, she says. “We want actual help, some money or compensation to rebuild our lives, this changes nothing.”

Like Ms Fatima, Reshma’s family has also challenged the demolition in court. Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s guidelines could potentially impact how all such pending cases are handled in the future.

“This decision will change a lot of things – courts will have to see whether legal processes were followed while carrying out these demolition works,” said senior advocate CU Singh of the Supreme Court. told BBC Hindi.

Ms Fatima is not entirely sure whether the court’s order would actually put a stop to the demolition.

But her father, Mr Mohammad, is full of hope, she says.

Sometimes she sees her father thinking about their old house: the sofas and the rugs, the rows of books on the shelves, which he had painstakingly put together, probably still among the rubble.

“He made most of the improvements, from the curtains to the pillow covers. Losing the house broke his heart more than anyone else’s,” she says.

But Mr. Mohammad does not want to dwell on the suffering and is already busy making new improvements to the house and his life. “He keeps saying to me: this is a historic order and we need to talk about it as much as possible,” says his daughter.

“Like this house, we are rebuilding lives and renewing our memories.”

Read more