The Bombay High Court has strongly condemned the demolition of the house belonging to riot-accused Fahim Khan in Nagpur, calling the action "high-handed" and questioning its legality. The court observed that such demolitions without proper legal procedures raise concerns about the misuse of administrative power and set a dangerous precedent.
The case pertains to a recent communal riot in Nagpur, after which authorities demolished the residence of Fahim Khan, citing alleged violations of municipal laws. However, the High Court took serious note of the incident, asking whether due process was followed or if the demolition was an act of vendetta.
During the hearing, the court demanded an explanation from the Nagpur administration and police, emphasizing that punitive actions should be taken strictly within the legal framework. The judges stated that law enforcement agencies must ensure their actions align with constitutional principles rather than being driven by emotions or public pressure.
The demolition has sparked controversy, with human rights activists and opposition leaders accusing the government of targeting individuals selectively. They argue that such actions undermine the rule of law and could be used as a tool for political or communal retribution. Legal experts also stress that no accused should be punished without proper judicial proceedings.
On the other hand, the Nagpur authorities maintain that the demolition was lawful and carried out as part of a crackdown on illegal structures. Officials claim that similar actions have been taken against several encroachments, not just Khan’s property.
The Bombay High Court has now directed the government to submit a detailed report on the demolition, including the legal grounds for the action. The case is expected to have broader implications for how state agencies handle riot-related cases and urban enforcement.
As the legal battle continues, the court's observations reinforce the importance of following due process and ensuring that administrative actions do not violate fundamental rights. The ruling in this case could set a precedent for future demolitions linked to criminal allegations.
