On January 16, Mohammad Mateen, 40, a driver from Khaggu Sarai of Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh, was arrested on charges of “disturbing peace.” His family, however, alleges that the arrest is part of an ongoing effort to force them out of their home following the “discovery” of a purported centuries-old temple adjacent to their house.
Mateen bought the property in 2002 with his own earnings and has all the necessary ownership documents. He even secured a bank loan by mortgaging the house. Despite this, the administration now sees his home as an obstacle to Hindu devotees who wish to perform parikrama around the temple. With Mateen’s arrest and mounting pressure to vacate, the family fears they may be forced out entirely.
Speaking to a news website, Mateen’s wife, Uzama Parveen, claimed that the district administration has been pressuring them ever since the temple was identified. “First, they told us to demolish our balcony, saying it was encroaching on the temple. Out of fear, we complied. But that was not the end of it,” she said. Soon after, Sambhal Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Vandana Mishra allegedly asked the family to demolish a wall of their house. “When we refused, she threatened that we might have to bring down the entire house,” Parveen added.
Her husband’s arrest, she claimed, was an extension of this pressure. “The police called him to the station and took him into custody, saying he was obstructing Hindu devotees from offering prayers.” Mateen was granted bail on January 24, but the fear of eviction lingers.
Polarisation in numbers
In 2024, at least 7,407 homes were demolished, rendering around 41,085 people homeless across 16 States
Uttar Pradesh accounted for the highest number of evictions, followed by Delhi, Assam, and Gujarat.
Nearly 37 per cent of documented housing demolitions targeted Muslim homes and localities.
One in four demolitions were punitive, often linked to communal tensions and state-led retribution.
Sambhal has witnessed repeated incidents of violence, and an atmosphere of fear prevails after violent clashes erupted over the archaeological survey of a Mughal-era mosque on November 19. A local court ordered the survey following a petition claiming the mosque was built on a temple site. According to Saad Usmani, a Sambhal-based journalist, tensions in the district have been high since November last year. “Many temples, like the one in Khaggu Sarai, have been ‘rediscovered’ and reopened across UP—all of them located in Muslim neighbourhoods,” he told Frontline. “God only knows where they’ll find the next one and who will be asked to leave their own home next,” Usmani added.
With communal tensions rising and administrative pressure mounting, Mateen’s family remains uncertain about their future in a home they have legally owned for over two decades. Mateen’s fear of losing his home is not just an unfounded anxiety but part of a larger, well-documented pattern. Under the ruling regime, punitive demolitions often follow a familiar script—escalating communal tensions, a religious procession, or an outbreak of violence frequently precede the bulldozing of minority homes. This orchestrated sequence has played out repeatedly, turning demolition into a tool of intimidation and collective punishment.
A year-long (2024) documentation of state-led evictions by Frontline has recorded 48 cases of housing rights violations across 16 States and Union Territories in India. These drives have resulted in the demolition of at least 7,407 houses, rendering approximately41,085 people homeless. Uttar Pradesh accounts for nearly 30 per cent of these cases, making it the most affected State, followed by Delhi and Assam. Authorities have repeatedly undermined the rule of law—not just by demolishing homes, but also by targeting businesses and places of worship. These actions are often disguised as mere “encroachment drives” to justify their execution, while in reality, they remain deeply embedded in systematic campaigns of hate, harassment, and violence.
In 2024, Uttar Pradesh witnessed at least 14 documented cases of eviction across multiple districts, including Lucknow, Sambhal, Bareilly, Bahraich, Maharajganj, Farrukhabad, Hardoi, Azamgarh, Ayodhya, and Gorakhpur. This comes as no surprise, given that Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has openly endorsed “bulldozer justice”.
On November 9, 2024, several of Adityanath’s supporters attended his public rally in Mainpuri, riding on bulldozers—a spectacle that has become a symbol of his governance. Fuelling this narrative is Hindutva pop music, with songs such as “Bulldozer Baba chap rahe hai, mafia bhag rahe hai” (Bulldozer Baba is crushing them, the mafia is running away).
Also Read | India’s bulldozer raj: Over 1,50,000 homes razed, 7,38,000 left homeless in two years
Concerns over the political costs of this policy have emerged even within the BJP. In a parliamentary session last July, Uttar Pradesh State minister Sanjay Nishad, a BJP ally, attributed the party’s losses to the “misuse of bulldozers”. Adityanath remained defiant, defending the “bulldozer policy” and stating that his motivation as Chief Minister was not merely to hold office, but to “ensure that those guilty also suffer”.
Other BJP-ruled States have followed Uttar Pradesh’s lead, with Assam, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand replicating this model.
The findings also align with a report by the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS), which documented 59 communal riots across India in 2024. Notably, most of these incidents occurred in States where the BJP governs either independently or in coalition. These States have also seen a sharp rise in communal hate speech, according to another report, with Uttar Pradesh leading in both communal riots and hate speech.
And, as per Frontline’s data, Uttar Pradesh also tops the list in the so-called “bulldozer raj”.
Beyond BJP-ruled States
But, even more worryingly, in recent times, polarisation has extended beyond BJP-ruled States, seeping into regions governed by the Opposition. For instance, in Himachal Pradesh—ruled by the Congress—Hindutva outfits staged large demonstrations demanding the demolition of a mosque in Shimla’s Sanjauli. The agitation culminated in violent protests, ultimately leading to the mosque’s demolition(in October 2024). In Karnataka’s capital, Bengaluru—another Congress-ruled State—the police allegedly evicted 70 families of migrant labourers, branding them “illegal Bangladeshi immigrants” in July 2024.
Aakar Patel, the executive director of Amnesty International India, told Frontline that once majoritarian laws take root, reversing them becomes increasingly difficult. “Legislation on matters such as criminalising the possession of beef and banning interfaith marriage may emerge under one political party. But even after that party leaves, the law remains. This is a trend that will be difficult to undo in the absence of a strong defence of secular values in politics.”
Fahad Zuberi, a columnist and doctoral scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines this phenomenon through the lens of political socialisation—the process by which certain political values become ingrained in everyday life and public opinion. He notes that political socialisation can sometimes foster egalitarian ideals, such as the increasing social acceptance of queer communities. However, in more damaging instances—such as bulldozer politics—it normalises the idea that demolishing Muslim homes as an acceptable form of collective punishment. “When such demands become embedded in the public’s collective imagination,” Zuberi warns, “even non-BJP States will eventually start responding to them.”
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on September 17, 2024, temporarily froze illegal bulldozer demolitions across the country. On November 13, 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan delivered a landmark judgment affirming that demolishing a person’s property solely based on their alleged criminal activity—without due process—is unconstitutional. This ruling is a crucial step in safeguarding individual rights, emphasising that such demolitions often amount to unjust “collective punishment” that affects entire families.
Justice Gavai underscored the profound consequences of these demolitions, noting that targeting a property impacts not only the accused but also their innocent family members, violating the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21 of the Constitution. He reiterated that due process is indispensable to ensure fairness and uphold legal protections.
Non-punitive evictions, no legal recourse
However, while the judgment sought to address punitive demolitions carried out as extrajudicial punishment, it largely overlooked evictions of a non-punitive nature—such as slum clearances conducted under the guise of encroachment removal, development projects, or for environmental reasons. This omission leaves thousands of slum residents without legal protection, exposing them to continued displacement.
Notably, most documented evictions in 2024 fell under the non-punitive category of slum clearance rather than punitive demolition. From the demolition of the Dalit settlement of Jai Bhim Nagar in Mumbai, which displaced 700 families, to the eviction of 1,000 families around Yamuna Pushta in Delhi, to the forced removal of 50 families in Okhla and Ghazipur—the trend is widespread.
Many of these evictions were also carried out in the name of “development projects”. For instance, 397 families were displaced in Dhalpur, Assam, under the Gorukhuti Agricultural Project, while at least 1,800 families were evicted in Lucknow for the Kukrail Riverfront Project.
This pattern raises a critical question: If the state continues to justify mass evictions under non-punitive categories, how much respite will the Supreme Court’s ruling offer those at risk of displacement?
According to Aakanksha Badkur, a human rights lawyer fighting housing rights cases in India, the Supreme Court’s approach remained restrictive even when the UN Special Rapporteur attempted to intervene with a broader national perspective. “The court declined to allow the intervention, stating that the scope of the petition before them was limited,” she explains.
Map 1: People Affected by Evictions in Different States of India in 2024
Data from Frontline’s Demolition Watch.
| Photo Credit:
Prepared by: Anuj Behal
While the court did issue directions on due process—such as the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard—it also created distinctions between different categories of demolitions. “One category involved individuals accused in criminal cases, whose properties were punitively demolished by the government. The court’s directions applied only within this limited scope,” Badkur adds. Moreover, the ruling focussed on individuals with legal tenure over their land, excluding those without formal land rights, thereby restricting its applicability even further.
Delhi-based human rights lawyer Zeeshan Ahmad believes the judgment could have offered more comprehensive protection by explicitly reaffirming housing rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. “By doing so, it would have reinforced the legal obligation to prevent arbitrary evictions and required authorities to adopt a rights-based approach, even in cases framed as administrative measures rather than punitive actions,” he argues. Ahmad notes that this would not have been a radical departure from existing legal principles, but rather, a necessary step to uphold the fundamental right to shelter.
Muslim students protest outside Uttar Pradesh House in New Delhi against the demolition of the homes of Muslim families. A file photo.
| Photo Credit:
AP
While the Supreme Court has addressed punitive demolitions, they continue to be a significant issue. In 2024 alone, at least 12 out of 48documented demolitions were punitive—meaning that one in every four evictions was carried out as a form of punishment, often targeting individuals based on their identity.
For instance, in Uttar Pradesh, a State notorious for arbitrary demolitions, authorities in Bareilly razed 11 Muslim homes following communal riots during the Muharram procession on July 18 last year. In Mumbai’s Mira Road suburb, 15 Muslim-owned properties in Haidary Chowk were demolished after communal clashes in January 2024. In Madhya Pradesh’s Mandla district, 11 Muslim homes were torn down on June 15 after police claimed to have found beef in their refrigerators.
The pattern extended to Rajasthan as well. In October, authorities demolished a house allegedly built on temple land, following accusations that the homeowner, Naseeb Chaudhary, and his son were involved in a knife attack at a Hindu temple. In another case in Udaipur, the administration demolished the home of a 15-year-old Muslim boy who had allegedly stabbed his Hindu schoolmate to death on August 16.
Surat in Gujarat saw similar incidents after communal tensions erupted during the Ganesh festival. On September 8, stone-pelting was reported at a Ganesh pandal in the Muslim-majority Sayedpura area. Police arrested six individuals accused of direct involvement, along with 27 others allegedly linked to the incident. In response, 1,000 police personnel were deployed, and authorities used lathi charges and tear gas to control the situation. Shortly after the unrest, an “anti-encroachment” drive was launched, targeting and demolishing shops in the same locality.
Instrument of collective punishment
These cases illustrate how demolitions have become a tool for collective punishment, reinforcing communal fault lines rather than addressing legal or administrative concerns. While evictions often follow patterns that appear distinctly communal and punitive, the legal process remains narrowly focused on procedural legitimacy. Many of these houses have some degree of unauthorised construction, a common issue across India. However, the law’s rigid framework often overlooks social realities, creating space for political parties to exploit it and perpetuate discrimination.
But even after the Supreme Court’s relief, punitive demolitions continue unchecked.
In Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh, violence erupted last October following the shooting of a man during a Durga Puja idol immersion. Clashes broke out over allegations of inflammatory songs, stone-pelting, and attempts to remove a green flag in a Muslim-majority area. In response, authorities issued demolition notices to 22 families, and three homes were ultimately bulldozed.
In September, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to the Assam government after 47 residents of Sonpur filed a petition accusing the State of defying the court’s order that no demolitions should take place without its approval. Despite the directive, at least 237 Muslim families were rendered homeless as authorities carried out large-scale evictions.
According to Anand Lakhan, a housing rights activist and leader of the Madhya Pradesh NavNirman Manch, contempt notices rarely lead to accountability, as demolitions are often irreversible by the time legal action is considered. “Authorities operate unchecked, knowing that a minor contempt charge won’t cost them much while the settlements they target are already erased,” he said.
The government’s continued disregard for the Supreme Court’s ruling on bulldozer demolitions raises serious concerns about the state of judicial justice in India. Despite legal protections, violations persist—albeit with some adjustments in scale and intensity—suggesting a troubling pattern of defiance. More alarmingly, the executive’s failure to enforce the court’s ruling not only weakens the rule of law but also sets a dangerous precedent for contempt of court.
This, scholars attribute to a phenomenon they call “executive courts”, which are aligned to the objectives of the executive rather than to the protection and upholding of fundamental rights. Badkur noted that the judiciary appears hesitant to expand the scope of judicial activism when rights are not simultaneously recognised by the legislature or executive in their policies. “While the separation of powers requires different arms of the government to interpret and implement laws progressively, especially in human rights matters, the judiciary often refrains from broadening rights when they lack support from other branches of governance,” she explained.
Ahmad argued that to fully grasp this crisis, one must look beyond mere implementation failures. “We should ask whether this situation is an anomaly or a symptom of deeper structural issues within India’s legal and political framework,” he said.
Also Read | As Supreme Court halts demolitions, bulldozer raj hits a wall
A historical perspective shows that political power has been central to India’s constitutional development. Scholars including Arvind Elangovan have noted that the Constituent Assembly prioritised political authority over purely normative considerations, a preference that continues to shape the functioning of state institutions. “The disregard for Supreme Court rulings—whether in bulldozer actions, the Sabarimala case, or the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment on mob lynching—must be understood in this broader context,” Ahmad explained. “The constitutional structure itself, shaped by the primacy of political power, has created conditions where executive overreach is not just possible but, at times, inevitable. This issue has been further exacerbated in contemporary India by the rise of majoritarianism, which often translates into selective enforcement of laws and judicial decisions.”
Ultimately, the ongoing bulldozer demolitions are not just about a single judgment being ignored. They signal a deeper crisis in judicial justice, where institutional weaknesses, political interests, and ideological shifts collectively erode the rule of law. If left unchecked, this pattern threatens to weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power, putting the constitutional order itself at risk.
Manufacturing Muslim erasure
“Those are the homes of Hindu families. But they are still standing,” said the people of Silbhanga Hill in Assam’s Morigaon district, alleging that Bengal-origin Muslim families were being specifically targeted. On June 24, the Morigaon district administration demolished hundreds of tin-roofed houses, displacing 8,000 people who had lived on the site for four generations. District officials defended the evictions, labelling the residents as “unauthorised encroachers” on railway land.
Despite the setbacks the BJP faced in the 2024 general election, the machinery of “bulldozer injustice” continues to operate, relentlessly targeting Muslim communities.
According to Zuberi, the rising tide of anti-Muslim hate has manifested in its most extreme form through the demolition and clearance of their settlements. “The state has now manufactured a toolkit—targeted demolitions, forced displacements, and demographic engineering—not just to consolidate political influence and shape electoral outcomes, but to embed a persistent hatred in the public psyche. It is about crafting a collective Hindutva imagination where Muslims are systematically erased,” he said.
The bulldozer has become more than a symbol but a rallying cry for Hindutva. It is paraded at Hindu supremacist events, glorified in Hindutva pop music, and deployed relentlessly against Muslim homes.
Through data collected by Frontline in 2024, it is evident that Muslims have been the most severely affected by state-led evictions. Of the documented cases where information was available, 55 per cent involved marginalised communities—Muslims, Scheduled Tribes, Dalits, and Christians. Within this, Muslims faced the brunt, with 37 per cent of all evictions in 2024 specifically targeting their homes and localities, pointing to a deliberate pattern of erasure. Indeed, the persecution of Muslims has become so normalised that it is almost seen as justified—or not even considered wrong.
Amid the Tughlaqabad demolition in Delhi in September 2023—one of the largest clearance drives in the city’s history—the eviction notice sent to the settlement was not just met with claims of long-term residence or legal rights to housing. It elicited an unsettling, prejudiced response: “Remove Muslims, why us?” The residents did not merely contest the legality of their eviction; they questioned the very rationale of them being targeted when another community in their neighbourhood was more deserving of punishment.
For as long as she can remember, Sushma Dutt, 62, has voted for the BJP, along with her extended family. Her thoughts, and frustrations, are telling: “We are not Rohingya or Bengali Muslims. The government has issues with them. But why trouble us? If they want to remove Muslims, they should do that. We are Hindus,” she said.
Sushma’s conviction is far from unique; it reflects a wider sentiment in communities increasingly caught in the crossfire of political agendas that prioritise divisiveness over unity.
Arjun S., an independent advocate practising at the High Court of Karnataka, has been a keen observer of the current political climate. The narrative of the government is built upon fostering hatred, and “thrives on a collective animosity, against a common enemy, but it is not grounded in the defense of individual rights”, he said. “Islamophobia, in this context, has become the opium for the masses—normalised to the point where people not only demand but accept certain injustices against specific communities,” Arjun said.
Adityanath has repeatedly used the slogan “Batenge toh katenge”—which translates to “If Hindus are divided, they will be slaughtered”—most recently invoking it after the 2024 election to forge Hindu unity.
“India’s diversity is being reduced to a religious binary,” Zuberi noted. “If Hindus, across all castes, must stay united, then who exactly is the ‘other’ that the BJP is rallying against?” In this framework, Muslims are cast as a perpetual threat—one that must be controlled, disciplined, and ultimately, erased. And the bulldozer has come to be the most powerful weapon in this framework.
Anuj Behal is an independent journalist and urban researcher primarily focussing on issues of housing rights, urban justice, gender, and sexuality.
Discover more from PressNewsAgency
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.