By Irfan Engineer, Neha Dabhade, Mithila Raut
In 2024, as in previous years, communal violence has persisted in the form of structural violence, embedded within the legal and institutional framework of the state. Structural violence, as conceptualized by Johan Galtung, refers to systematic inequalities and injustices that are institutionalized within legal, political, and social structures, thereby disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. In this context, discriminatory legislation, selective implementation of existing laws, and state directives have played a crucial role in perpetuating structural violence.
The following analysis highlights two prevalent forms of structural violence: state-led demolitions of properties predominantly owned by Muslims, which serve as a mechanism of “collective punishment,” and the appropriation of religious sites, particularly mosques and dargahs, under the guise of “reclaiming” these spaces. It is noteworthy that similar incidents have occurred in 2023, suggesting a continued pattern of marginalization of the Muslim community into 2024.
In the past few years, there is an emerging pattern which targets the Muslims. The properties of the Muslims are targeted by the state under the most random pretexts. Though the claim of the state behind these demolitions were cited as illegal construction of the properties or these properties being built on “encroached” land, the timings of these demolitions suggest that it is a form of “collective punishment” towards the Muslim community. The demolitions were mostly preceded by hate speeches by the authorities from the ruling regimes. In 2024 too like the previous years, the demolitions targeting Muslims continued unabated. Demolitions of properties owned by Muslims has emerged as a potent form of socio- economic marginalization of Muslims in India.
According to the monitoring of Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS) based on the reports in the Mumbai edition of The Times of India, The Hindu, The Indian Express, Sahafat, and Inquilab, in 2024, there were 19 incidents of state-led demolitions. Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest number with five incidents, followed by Maharashtra with four. Delhi and Madhya Pradesh each reported two cases, while Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttarakhand recorded one incident each.
According to the monitoring conducted by the Centre for the Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS), based on data gathered from five newspapers, a total of 19 incidents of demolition were recorded in 2024. Among these, six involved the complete or partial demolition of mosques. Additionally, other structures targeted in these demolitions included over 500 buildings, comprising two madrassas, numerous graves, and 45 musafir khanas (travellers’ rest houses).
In comparison, CSSS recorded 12 demolition incidents in 2023. Of these, four occurred in Delhi, three in Uttar Pradesh, two in Uttarakhand, and one each in Gujarat, Haryana, and Jammu and Kashmir. These incidents involved the demolition of 358 mazars (shrines), partial destruction of a mosque, and the demolition of over 244 other structures, including residential houses and commercial shops.
The recent spate of demolitions across multiple states in India raises critical questions about governance, due process, law and the targeting of minority communities. A detailed analysis of 19 demolition incidents reveals troubling patterns that suggest these actions are not administrative but motivated by a larger political agenda.
The demolitions occurred in 10 states, eight of which are governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or its coalition partners, and one each by the Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party, respectively. This pattern raises concerns about whether these actions are driven by administrative necessities or political motivations. The fact that demolitions exclusively took place in BJP-governed states signals a pattern that warrants deeper scrutiny.
An important factor in these demolitions is their connection to preceding incidents. In cases where demolitions followed communal riots, only two instances were recorded. However, a significantly higher number of demolitions—17 cases—occurred in response to other issues. These demolitions disproportionately affect Muslim communities. These other issues included rape and murder. Kindly note, under the Indian civil or criminal law, demolition of the property is not prescribed as punished for the any of the above offences.
Uttar Pradesh has emerged as the epicentre of demolitions, recording the highest number of cases (five) among all states. The Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government has gained notoriety for its use of bulldozer politics, often justifying these demolitions under the pretext of removing illegal encroachments. However, critics argue that these actions disproportionately target Muslims, fostering an atmosphere of fear within the community. The demolitions raise serious concerns about due process, as many of the affected structures belong to Muslims, reinforcing suspicions that these actions are punitive rather than administrative, targeting the Muslim community. In several instances, families were not given prior notice or legal recourse before their homes and businesses were destroyed. Additionally, the political messaging surrounding these demolitions further fuels controversy. BJP leaders have frequently used bulldozer imagery in election campaigns, portraying demolitions as a decisive crackdown on lawbreakers—often equating them with Muslims, thereby deepening communal divisions.
The information provided by the five newspapers sheds light on significant procedural lapses in the legal process prior to demolition, which undermine the fairness and adequacy of opportunities for affected individuals to present their cases. A critical procedural requirement that must be adhered to by the administration is the issuance of notices to property owners whose buildings are deemed “illegal.” In accordance with article 21 of Indian Constitution, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. Demolition of properties amount to destruction of livelihood and shelter. Notice not as prescribed by procedure established by relevant laws amounts to no notice at all. Thus, demolitions which have not followed due procedure including valid notice, fair hearing and mention clearly of grounds of violations are unconstitutional.
Out of 19 incidents of demolitions, alarmingly, in one incident, in Udaipur, the notice was given on the same day as the demolition, and in another incident from Assam, it was delivered after the demolition had already occurred. Notably, in four demolition cases—including the demolition of ‘Akhoondji Masjid,’ ‘Behrul Uloom Madrasa,’ Mira road in Mumbai and graves in Mehrauli, Delhi—no notice was served at all.
The practice of demolitions, which has increasingly become normalized rather than exceptional, has raised significant concerns, particularly due to its disproportionate impact on Muslim citizens and rule of law in India. This trend has drawn the attention of the judiciary, which, on several occasions, has expressed apprehension regarding the potential bias in these demolitions, underscoring the necessity of adhering to due process and constitutional safeguards. The judiciary has intervened in some cases where demolitions appeared to be politically motivated or targeted. In these instances, the courts have emphasized that demolitions must not be employed as punitive measures without the proper legal procedures, cautioning against selective enforcement that could be influenced by religious or political considerations.
Several judicial rulings have reinforced the need for prior notice, fair hearings, and strict adherence to municipal laws before any demolition can occur. In some cases, courts have halted demolitions, citing violations of natural justice and procedural deficiencies. Furthermore, the judiciary has directed authorities to submit reports to ensure accountability and prevent arbitrary actions. Through these interventions, the judiciary has sought to impose restrictions on the administration, attempting to curb at some places the unchecked use of demolition as a tool for “collective punishment”.
The Supreme Court on 2nd September, 2024 observed that offences committed by a criminal could not be the ground for bulldozing his house, and readied itself to lay down pan-India guidelines to stop states from resorting to ‘bulldozer justice’ as a deterrent against crimes. The apex court was hearing a PIL filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, a body of Deobandi religious clerics. For the petitioner, senior advocate Dushyant Dave sought a ban on razing of properties as he focused on the demolition of houses of alleged criminals in UP in particular. Jamiat’s stand was rebutted by the BJP state government. SC clarified it wouldn’t go into individual grievances of demolition and would ask all states to scrupulously follow the guidelines. (Mahapatra, 2024)
Observing that government authorities indulging in ‘bulldozer justice’ amounts to “running a bulldozer over the laws of the land”, Supreme Court on 12th September, 2024 held that such actions are against the law and said involvement in crime is no ground for demolition of a property. On September 2, an SC bench had said law does not permit the destruction of the family shelters of even convicts, and agreed to frame guidelines to be followed across all states to prevent arbitrary demolitions. The practice, which was initiated by Uttar Pradesh government as a punitive measure against accused persons, is being replicated by others, including Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. On 12th September, hearing the plea of a family from Gujarat whose home the municipal authorities had threatened to bulldoze, a bench of Justices strongly disapproved of the practice. It said the entire family could not be punished by demolishing the house for the offence allegedly committed by one member. (Choudhary, 2024)
On 6th November, 2024, the Supreme Court has firmly stated that citizens’ properties cannot be threatened with demolition and that “bulldozer justice” is “unacceptable”. A bench emphasized that no civilized legal system recognizes justice through bulldozers, and proper legal procedures must be followed before addressing illegal constructions or encroachments. It observed that bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter, the bench said. The Constitution’s Article 300A stipulates that property rights can only be curtailed through legal authority. This ruling pertains to a 2019 house demolition case in Uttar Pradesh’s Maharajganj district. Finding the state’s actions “high handed”, the bench ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to provide Rs 25 lakh interim compensation to the petitioner whose house was demolished for road development. The November 6 judgement highlighted that allowing such unlawful state actions could lead to selective demolition of citizens’ properties for unrelated reasons. (Times of India, 2024)
The Supreme Court on November 13, 2024 lashed out that States which metamorphose into judges to punish accused persons awaiting trial by driving bulldozers into their homes indulge in a naked display of “might is right” without sparing a thought for families rendering them shelter less and destitute overnight. “The chilling sight of a bulldozer demolishing a building, when authorities have failed to follow the basic principles of natural justice and have acted without adhering to the principle of due process, reminds one of a lawless state of affairs, where might was right,” a Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan observed (Rajagopal, 2024). (IPA Service)
Will The Thackeray Cousins, Raj And Uddhav, Come Together Again? 