By Mohammed Naushad Khan
NEW DELHI: Former Lieutenant General Zameer Uddin Shah, who also served as Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, has filed an intervention application in the “bulldozer action” petition originally filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind.
Gen Shah, who retired as Deputy Chief of Army Staff, filed his application through senior Supreme Court advocate Prashant Bhushan. He is among several petitioners challenging the use of demolitions as punitive measures against individuals accused of crimes.
In his petition, Gen Shah stated that he had never faced discrimination during his long Army career based on religion. However, he expressed concern about the “egregious subversion of the judicial process” caused by the use of ‘targeted and punitive demolitions’ and ‘forced evictions’ as a de facto state policy across the nation. These actions, he argued, are primarily directed against a particular community and against those who have opposing views or are political activists.
“These actions violate fundamental principles of the rule of law, Due Process of Law, the Right to a Fair Trial, the Presumption of Innocence, Separation of Powers, and the Right Against Double Jeopardy,” he said in his petition.
The former army officer highlighted that “systematic demolition drives” blatantly violate fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 of the Constitution of India. Such demolition drives, targeting the homes of individuals accused of offenses, also contravene Article 300-A of the Constitution.
He noted that these targeted and punitive demolitions undermine the nation’s commitment to international legal standards and human rights norms. Elaborating further, Gen Shah argued that such demolitions breach several international conventions, including:
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)
• UN Basic Principles and Guidelines No. 6 on Development-based Evictions and Displacement, which prohibit forced evictions and require prevention whenever possible
• Guideline No. 15, ensuring Effective Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms
• Guideline No. 16, ensuring access to justice for all aspects of the right to housing
Providing the background of the case, he pointed out that over the past 7-8 years, the country has witnessed an unprecedented and disturbing pattern of forced evictions and demolition drives carried out by both the Union and various State governments. These actions have been conducted without adhering to due process of law, thereby violating citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Quoting the “Forced Evictions in India Report” by the Housing and Land Rights Network, Gen Shah highlighted that, in 2022 alone, an average of 129 houses were demolished every day. This number rose to at least 294 houses per day in 2023. Between 2017 and 2023, over 1.68 million people were evicted from their homes, which were subsequently demolished.
The report, according to Gen Shah, revealed that the impact of these demolition drives has been disproportionately severe on historically underprivileged, marginalized, and downtrodden communities, including Muslims, Dalits, Adivasis, women, children, orphans, and transgender individuals. He asserted that these demolitions have led to an increase in homelessness over the last decade, exacerbating existing societal inequalities.
In his petition, he mentioned an Amnesty International Report titled ‘Bulldozer Injustice in India – 2024,’ which was based on data collected from 63 demolition drives between August 2022 and August 2023. The report indicated that most of these forced evictions and demolitions were discriminatory, specifically targeting the Muslim community. Their homes, businesses, and places of worship were demolished without due process of law.
Gen Shah, who was also deployed in Gujarat during the 2002 anti-Muslim pogrom, pointed out in the petition that ‘Punitive Demolitions’ have become a systematic policy for demolishing the homes, properties, and businesses of protesters, activists, opposition politicians, or persons accused of committing crimes. This is done under the guise of enforcing municipal or land use laws or regulations, often without adhering to due process.
Stating that punitive demolitions have disproportionately impacted Muslims, he quoted a report titled “Routes of Wrath” by the ‘Citizens and Lawyers Initiative.’ This report, a detailed study of state responses to communal violence during Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti processions post-2022, found that after nearly every incident of communal violence, district administrations responded with massive demolition drives in predominantly Muslim areas. These actions, according to the report, were explicitly motivated by punitive intentions, as admitted by district officials or state ministers.
He also cited an observation from the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the demolition of Muslim houses after communal violence in Nuh in Haryana in 2023. The court noted that Haryana was using force to demolish buildings under the pretext of addressing law and order problems, questioning whether this practice constituted ethnic cleansing under the guise of law enforcement.
Gen Shah argued that such instances of punitive demolition are not exceptions but have become a “state policy,” often referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’ or ‘instant justice.’ This policy is used as a form of punishment against particular communities or political dissenters.
He asserted that punitive demolitions often act as a form of collective punishment against individuals who have not personally committed any crime. He highlighted that, according to the Geneva Convention, no person may be punished for an offence they have not personally committed, and collective penalties are prohibited.
Gen Shah emphasized that in all these “state-sponsored” demolition drives, no prior notices were issued to the affected parties, no opportunity was provided to be heard by an appropriate authority, and there was a lack of legal remedy or compensation for the illegal demolitions. There was also no accountability on the part of the authorities conducting these demolitions with impunity.
