Restoring Constitutionalism? The Indian Supreme Court and Illegal Demolitions

Sarthak Gupta

Sarthak Gupta is a Judicial Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate at the Supreme Court of India

On February 27, 2025, the Punjab Government illegally demolished the house of a woman allegedly involved in drug trafficking, with similar demolitions reported in Rajasthan, Haryana, and other states. These state-sanctioned punitive measures continue despite the Supreme Court of India's ruling in November 2024 that the growing practice of state-sanctioned demolition of the property of accused persons as a collective extrajudicial punishment, bereft of due process, is unconstitutional. This disconnect reflects the Court's unwillingness to confront the true nature of 'Bulldozer Raj,' where State and police actors employ the coded language of retribution and collective punishment while municipal authorities maintain the facade of legal compliance by citing technical violations. This post critiques this discriminatory practice (which has largely targeted religious minorities), the Supreme Court's delayed response, and how its recent guidelines, while stemming the tide of this phenomenon, still fail to address the underlying pattern of demolitions systematically targeting religious and caste minorities.

Bulldozer Raj  > Rule of Law

In recent years, the issue of unlawful demolitions in India has become increasingly pronounced, wherein the State demolishes the properties of individuals who either participate in public protests or are accused of crimes. These demolitions primarily target religious or caste minorities.  This practice gave rise to a 'Bulldozer Raj’, signifying the extensive use of backhoe loaders to demolish properties under the guise of justice. On August 17, 2024, the Udaipur Municipal Corporation in Rajasthan demolished a tenant's house after the tenant's 16-year-old son was arrested for allegedly stabbing a classmate from another community. Similarly, in June 2024, Madhya Pradesh State authorities demolished the ancestral home of a laborer whose son was accused of placing a severed bovine head in a temple. Last year, in August 2023, a demolition drive took place in Haryana's Nuh district following communal violence during a religious procession among Hindu and Muslim communities. State authorities allegedly demolished 1200 structures as a form of collective punishment against persons accused of committing offenses. Similar demolitions occurred in  New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Karnataka, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat. Since 2022, more than 150,000 homes across the country have been demolished through illegal action, leaving 738,000 people homeless.

In 2022, the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind (a social and religious organization for Indian Muslims) filed a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court to issue directions to the State Government to stop illegal demolitions undertaken as a form of punishment. However, as discussed here, the Supreme Court failed to take meaningful action in addressing the issue. The Court ignored the pattern of illegal demolition and gave oratorical statements in open courts, during the proceedings, about the need to follow legal processes, while refusing to acknowledge the clear evidence of illegal and punitive demolitions.

Statements from officials in Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Assam reveal that these demolitions are intended to instill fear and serve the purpose of teaching rioters so-called lessons. Yet, the Court continued to adjourn the petition without substantive intervention, ignoring both the explicit statements by state actors and the obvious connection between the protests and the demolitions. By repeatedly adjourning the cases and refusing to issue comprehensive orders, the Court allowed the state’s two-faced approach—publicly claiming compliance with the law while pursuing retributive demolitions—to persist unchecked, thus contributing to the erosion of the rule of law and unconstitutional affairs of the state.

Restoring the Rule of Law

After two years, the Supreme Court finally took suo moto cognizance of the issue and delivered its decision, wherein the Court reiterated that the ‘rule of law’ and the ‘separation of powers’ are part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution. The Court, while neglecting to apply any established principles to the specific facts of the case, proceeded to discuss abstract legal concepts such as the rule of law, separation of powers, doctrine of public trust and public accountability, the presumption of innocence, and natural justice at great length. The judgment contained no analysis of how these principles related to the factual circumstances before the Court, offering theoretical exposition without practical application. 

Considering the principles discussed and the factual circumstances, the Court framed the following guidelines establishing a mandatory four-stage process for property demolitions. First, authorities must issue a detailed 15-day notice through registered post and physical display, with digital tracking through the Collector's office. Second, a formal hearing must be conducted where property owners can present their case. Third, a detailed final order must be issued explaining why demolition is necessary and cannot be avoided through alternatives. Finally, implementation can only proceed after a 15-day appeal window, with mandatory video documentation and reporting.

One side of the Coin

While establishing a four-stage process with mandatory notices, hearings, and appeal windows, the Court addressed procedural inadequacies, but I believe this represents just one aspect of the issue. While doing so, it failed to acknowledge that these demolitions systematically targeted specific communities, particularly Muslims, following protests or allegations against community members, i.e., the discriminatory pattern targeting religious and caste minorities. The Court's reluctance to address this discriminatory pattern is particularly glaring given the explicit statements from officials that these demolitions were intended to "instill fear" and "teach rioters lessons."

Despite clear evidence showing demolitions disproportionately affected religious minorities (like in Haryana's Nuh district, where 283 Muslims and 71 Hindus were affected), the Supreme Court failed to recognize how multiple axes of oppression converge to create unique vulnerabilities for those targeted. By focusing solely on procedural violations while ignoring the religious and caste dimensions of these demolitions, the Court entrenched a legal framework that does not adequately address how marginalized identities experience compounded forms of discrimination. Muslim individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds face not just religious targeting but also class-based barriers to legal recourse, while the intersection of religious identity with political dissent creates a pattern of state violence that procedural safeguards alone cannot remedy. This judicial blindness to intersecting vulnerabilities effectively legitimizes structural violence and fails to acknowledge how systems of power strategically target those at the crossroads of multiple marginalized identities.

By establishing guidelines without addressing the discriminatory pattern, the Court legitimized the demolitions with the facade of legality while allowing the underlying prejudice to continue, as evidenced by the Vijay Nagar case where demolition notices were selectively issued to Muslim families and a 100-year-old mosque immediately after protests by right-wing groups demanding "Bulldozer Raj." The Court's two-year delay in addressing these issues further demonstrates its reluctance to confront state-sanctioned discrimination, effectively allowing authorities to maintain their ‘two-faced approach’ of claiming legality while pursuing retributive demolitions against specific communities. Thus, the Court's ruling on illegal demolitions presents a peculiar judicial theatre where the judges elaborately restate basic legal principles in response to arguments not presented in the case, avoiding the real issue of discriminatory enforcement. This disconnect reflects the Court's unwillingness to confront the true nature of ‘Bulldozer Raj,’ where State and Police actors employ the coded language of retribution and collective punishment while municipal authorities maintain the facade of legal compliance by citing technical violations.

By addressing only one side of the coin, the Court's elaborate recitation of constitutional principles becomes an exercise in avoidance rather than accountability. This strategic blindness to the deliberately bifurcated narrative allows the Court to appear protective of constitutional values while preserving the system that enables targeted demolitions to continue under legal pretexts. The Court’s complicity is apparent from the statements of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh made a week after the ruling, that a ‘bulldozer is on standby’ and from instances taking place across the country (see here, here, and here). The Court has thus offered only a partial remedy that leaves vulnerable communities without full constitutional protection. This half-hearted attempt at restoring constitutionalism reveals a troubling reluctance to acknowledge the state's role in weaponizing demolitions against religious and caste minorities.

Sarthak Gupta is a Judicial Law Clerk-cum-Research Associate at the Supreme Court of India, currently working under Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Judge, Supreme Court. Previously, he clerked for Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, Judge, Supreme Court. He was not involved in the case in any capacity, and all views expressed are his own, not those of the Court.

Suggested Citation: Sarthak Gupta, ‘The Indian Supreme Court and Illegal Demolitions’ IACL-AIDC Blog (20 March 2025) Restoring Constitutionalism? The Indian Supreme Court and Illegal Demolitions — IACL-IADC Blog