Editor’s note: We did a detailed Big Story on this emerging brand of bulldozer politics yesterday—including the events in Jahangirpuri and other parts of the country.

First, before we begin…

This is a clip that may help if you need to restore your faith in humanity—especially since we are constantly inundated with videos that often express hate. Here’s a very articulate young Hindu man expressing anger at the demolitions. Listen to how he describes his relationship with his Muslim friend. It’s a needed reminder that Hindus and Muslims have long lived beside one another—and in great harmony:

Also worth a watch: This clip of another Hindu resident—and Hanuman bhakt—talking about his relationship with his Muslim neighbours, and his view of the Hindutva activists:

Next, the Supreme Court case

The Court heard the petitions submitted by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, CPM leader Brinda Karat and a fruit vendor—challenging the demolition of houses and shops in Jahangirpuri. On the other side: The solicitor-general Tushar Mehta tasked with defending the government’s actions.

A temporary stay: The Court imposed a stay on all future demolitions until further orders. And expressed its displeasure at the fact that its order to maintain ‘status quo’ yesterday had been initially ignored by municipal authorities—but said it would deal with it “later.” There were no immediate consequences. More important: The justices outright refused to impose a stay on similar demolitions in other parts of the country. The bench has scheduled the next hearing in two weeks.

Point to note: Legal expert Gautam Bhatia pointed out on Twitter that the Supreme Court has shown very little interest in enforcing its own orders—and often ignores instances when they have been grossly violated by the government in power:

“[W]hen the SC signals that in certain matters compliance with its orders is optional, while in other matters it comes down like a ton of bricks for contempt, the only result is that impunity will increase.”

What the petitioners said: Their argument, in essence, is that these demolitions represent a deliberate campaign to punish Muslims:

"What happened there is a matter of inquiry by an appropriate judicial process but what you do is make large-scale arrests from people of only one community and start bulldozing… This is not confined to Jahangirpuri and affects the social fabric of the country. If we allow this, there will be no rule of law or democracy left.”

What the government said: Mehta accused the petitioners of “communalising” a routine demolition drive—which had been underway since January 19, and has little to do with the riots. He insisted that the residents whose buildings had been torn down had received advance notice—as required by the law. And this is why organisations like the Jamiat have approached the court—and not the “affected persons” because they know they have received such notices.

Also this: Mehta also pointed to Khargone, Madhya Pradesh—where 16 homes and 29 shops were razed in the wake of communal riots, claiming: “88 of the affected individual parties were Hindus and 26 were Muslims…. Notices were issued in 2021. Orders were passed for demolition in 2021 and 2022.” 

Key point to note: There is no indication in the justices’ remarks that they bought the petitioners’ framing of the issue as a campaign against Muslims. They confined themselves to questions about due process followed in razing the buildings:

“When the statute provides for doing a thing in a certain way, you have to do it in that way. There is also an appellate tribunal. Under Section 343 of the [Delhi Municipal] Act there is a time gap of 5-15 days, only after which you can consider demolitions.”

The main takeaway: The Court appears uninterested in urgently intervening to stop the spate of demolitions across the country. And it seems intent on treating Jahangirpuri as a separate and isolated instance—where the issue is not the constitutional rights of Muslims as Indian citizens but the specific laws that govern demolition of illegal construction.

About those illegal construction laws…

The big picture: The issue of illegal construction in India is complicated and thorny—and violations are rampant in our cities. As ORF author Ramanath Jha points out, the real problem is space, or lack thereof:

“A primary reason is that in these large cities, the cost of land is steep, and the huge demands for housing, office and commercial space far outstrip planning speed, product supply, and spatial availability at affordable rates.”

The class divide: The result of this real estate crunch plays out in the same way everywhere. The rich build large bungalows and buildings by bribing the right people—as with 24 bungalows illegally built along the coast in Alibaug. While the urban poor—including migrant labour who flock to big cities—are crowded into slums and shanties with no regard for safety or the law:

“These are built wholly illegally and without permission from the authorities, many times on unbuildable or hazardous land, such as near high-tension electrical lines, marshy lands, hill tops, or flood-prone areas. These are generally in violation of all zonal regulations.”

These neighbourhoods are jammed with small shops, street vendors and small buildings that do not follow any kind of zoning or development rules. And there these migrants remain for decades and even generations. Jahangirpuri—which is home to people from UP, Bihar and Bengal—is one such example. And successive governments have been content to turn a blind eye—rather than tackle the far more difficult and important task of creating affordable housing. 

Data point to note: According to a 2008-09 government survey only 23.7% of Delhi residents live in planned colonies—while the rest like in slums, villages and unplanned and/or unauthorised settlements. These unplanned settlements house over three-quarters of Delhi’s population.

Also notable: Of the 1,797 unauthorised colonies identified in Delhi in 2019, 69 belonged to the “affluent class”—including Sainik Farms, Freedom Fighters Enclave, Vasant Kunj Enclave, Saidul Ajaib Extension, and Chhatarpur Enclave.

The law: Since poverty, privilege and politics are involved, the laws are fairly protective of illegal construction—and enforcement has been mostly half-hearted. A series of Supreme Court rulings have ordered a crackdown—but emphasised the need to follow due process as required by the fundamental right to equality before the law:

“The Supreme Court had ruled in 1985, and upheld in subsequent cases, that not serving notice to affected parties violates ‘the principles of natural justice,’ and any departure from the due process of law results in an unjust decision. It also established that evictions and demolitions of homes and businesses may lead to a deprivation of one’s right to live with dignity under Article 21, which ensures the right to live with dignity.”

The bottomline: As Utkarsh Anand concludes in Hindustan Times, the Jahangirpuri demolitions are likely to test the weight of these precedents—and the Court’s willingness to enforce them:

“The raft of case laws juxtaposed with the legal provisions make it clear that while municipal authorities may have the power to deprive citizens of their property, this can’t happen without the sanction of law or following due procedure, for the damages are irreparable. Further, it is a settled rule of interpretation of statutes that when power is given under a law to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”

Reading list

Ramanath Jha in ORF authors a detailed paper on illegal construction in India—identifying the root causes and possible solutions. Hindustan Times (paywall) has the most on the Supreme Court’s history of rulings and interventions. The Wire has a shorter but useful piece on the main points of law that are relevant in Jahangirpuri. The Print put together a good overview of all the relevant laws—local and national—including those regulating shops.