We hope this judgement will mark a turning point to deter discriminatory campaigns of hate, harassment and violence against minorities in India.
Never again should such deeply unjust and unlawful actions be repeated in the country.
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International
In a historic and much-needed decision, the Supreme Court of India recently issued strict guidelines to end the draconian practice of demolishing homes and properties of accused individuals without due legal process. Popularly referred to as “bulldozer justice,” this practice has been criticised for targeting marginalised communities, particularly Muslims, often serving as a tool of extrajudicial punishment. While the judgment underscores the principles of justice and the rule of law, it also casts a stark light on the injustices of the past and the urgent need for restitution and reconciliation.
The Legacy of Injustice
Over the past two years, India has witnessed a troubling trend of selective demolitions, where homes, businesses, and even places of worship belonging to Muslims were razed under the pretext of “illegal construction” or as punitive measures following incidents of violence. These demolitions were neither random nor impartial; they disproportionately targeted Muslim communities while leaving neighbouring properties owned by Hindus untouched. This systemic targeting was not an accident—it was deliberate, fueled by communal hatred and sanctioned at the highest levels of government.
Amnesty International, in its reports “If you speak up, your house will be demolished” and “Unearthing Accountability”, documented at least 128 demolitions across five states, including Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Assam, and Delhi. The reports highlighted how JCB (named after its founder Joseph Cyril Bamford)-branded bulldozers became the “weapon of choice” in these demolitions, with right-wing leaders and media even glorifying these machines as symbols of power. The term “Bulldozer Baba,” attributed to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, epitomises the celebration of these human rights violations as effective governance.
These demolitions were executed without following due process. Victims were often given little or no notice, making it impossible to contest the actions or salvage their belongings. In many cases, the demolitions occurred at night, rendering entire families—including women, children, and the elderly—homeless and destitute. The stories are heart-wrenching: a widow in Madhya Pradesh watched her home collapse as she pleaded for her disabled son’s safety; a 60-year-old woman saw her husband beaten with batons for questioning the authorities. These actions weren’t just illegal; they were inhumane, violating both the Indian Constitution and international human rights laws.
A Systematic Erosion of Rights
The government’s approach to these demolitions was rooted in discrimination and impunity. Amnesty International’s investigation revealed a chilling pattern: demolitions were carried out in retaliation for communal violence or protests, with the authorities using the pretence of combating “illegal encroachments” to justify their actions. However, the targeted nature of these demolitions makes it clear that they were more about collective punishment than legality.
The media played an enabling role, portraying these actions as necessary and even praiseworthy. By branding the demolitions as “justice,” they normalised the weaponisation of state machinery against a vulnerable minority. This collaboration extended to the corporate world, as JCB, whose machinery was widely used in the demolitions, failed to acknowledge its role in these human rights abuses. While the company argued that it could not control how its products were used post-sale, it neglected its responsibility under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which mandate due diligence in preventing the misuse of products in regions prone to rights violations.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention
Amid this backdrop of injustice, the Supreme Court’s ruling comes as a beacon of hope. It categorically declared that the demolition of homes based on mere accusations, without a fair trial or due process, is unconstitutional. The court emphasised that even if someone is convicted of a crime, their property cannot be destroyed arbitrarily. “Right to shelter is a fundamental right,” Justice B.R. Gavai remarked, reinforcing the separation of powers and affirming that the judiciary—not the executive—must determine guilt or innocence.
The judgment also condemned the practice of collective punishment, noting that demolishing a home penalises entire families, including those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. This violates the principles of fairness and proportionality. The court mandated a 15-day notice period before any demolition, during which occupants must be allowed to respond. Any demolition carried out without following these procedures would entitle victims to compensation, and officials responsible for such illegal actions would face accountability measures, including contempt of court.
In addition, the judgment called for greater transparency, instructing states to create a digital portal for filing and viewing demolition notices. This is a critical step toward ensuring that the public can monitor and challenge state actions, preventing the misuse of power.
The Need for Restitution
While the Supreme Court’s guidelines are a welcome development, they cannot erase the pain and suffering inflicted on countless families over the past two years. Victims of these demolitions continue to live in limbo, with many unable to rebuild their lives due to the financial and emotional devastation caused by the loss of their homes and livelihoods. Legal cases challenging the demolitions remain unresolved, and the state has failed to provide compensation or effective remedies.
India must do more than just prevent future injustices; it must address the wrongs of the past. The government has a moral and constitutional obligation to rebuild the homes and businesses it destroyed and to compensate the victims adequately. Beyond monetary reparations, there must be an acknowledgement of the harm caused and a commitment to ensuring that such actions are never repeated.
The Path Forward
The states must act swiftly to comply with the guidelines, holding accountable those who orchestrated and carried out these unlawful demolitions. This includes not only the bureaucrats and police officers involved but also the political leaders who encouraged and celebrated these actions.
India must also confront the larger issue of systemic discrimination against minorities. The demolitions are part of a broader pattern of harassment and violence against Muslims, from mob lynchings to biased citizenship laws. Ending these practices requires a concerted effort to uphold the principles of secularism and pluralism enshrined in the Constitution.
International actors, including companies like JCB, must also take responsibility. By failing to address the misuse of their equipment, JCB has indirectly contributed to these human rights abuses. The company must publicly condemn such actions, implement robust due diligence policies, and ensure its products are not used to perpetuate injustice.
