New Delhi/Malvan: A team of lawyers from the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR) has taken the case of a Muslim family from Malvan, Maharashtra, to the Supreme Court, challenging the demolition of their scrap shop following unproven allegations against their teenage son.
The case, titled Kitabulla Hamidulla Khan Vs. Santosh Jirage, was filed in the Supreme Court on March 19, 2025. Senior Advocate C.U. Singh, along with AOR Fauzia Shakeel, AOR Ujjwal Singh, Adv. M. Huzaifa, and Adv. Tasmiya Taleha, are representing the family, arguing that the demolition was a blatant act of injustice.
The controversy began after a 15-year-old Muslim boy was accused of chanting anti-India slogans following a cricket match. The claim, however, was based entirely on a report by an unidentified bystander, with no concrete evidence provided.
Despite the weak allegations, police arrested his parents and authorities moved swiftly to demolish their scrap shop, citing “illegal construction.” The family had been living and running their business in Malvan for over 10 years, raising questions about the sudden crackdown.
The APCR legal team argues that the Malvan municipal authorities have openly defied Supreme Court directives that prohibit demolishing homes and businesses as a form of extrajudicial punishment. The top court has consistently ruled that structures cannot be razed merely because the owner has been accused or convicted of a crime.
Despite this, bulldozer actions have increasingly been used as a punitive measure, especially against marginalized communities, leading to concerns over selective targeting and abuse of power.
APCR’s move to the Supreme Court aims to hold authorities accountable for arbitrary demolitions and to seek legal protection for families facing such injustices. Lawyers have highlighted that such demolitions violate constitutional rights, including due process and equality before the law.
With the case now before the Supreme Court, all eyes are on the judiciary to determine whether the Malvan municipality will be held responsible for its actions and whether similar future demolitions can be prevented.
