The Udaipur Municipal Corporation demolished the rented home of a 15-year-old Muslim boy on Saturday, who was accused of stabbing his Hindu classmate.
According to media reports, the demolition was justified by the claim that the house was illegally constructed on land owned by the forest department.
Udaipur Inspector General Ajay Lamba told the media that the homeowner could not provide valid ownership documents, leading to the demolition. Lamba further mentioned that both the minor and his father have been detained, and legal actions will follow under the Juvenile Justice Act. The exact charges against the father are yet to be disclosed.
In recent years, there has been an increasing trend in states governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party to demolish allegedly illegal properties of individuals accused of crimes, most often targeting Muslims. However, Indian law does not authorise such punitive demolitions.
In a video shared online after the demolition, Rashid Khan, the house owner, expressed his frustration, stating, “The family of the boy involved is now staying with relatives. Why is the administration demolishing my house? I went to the municipal corporation, but everyone was on leave. The police also refused to intervene. This is an injustice. I lost my house without any fault.”
Udaipur Collector Arvind Poswal confirmed that the Hindu classmate who was allegedly stabbed is in stable condition, with a team of doctors from Jaipur monitoring his treatment.
The incident led to communal violence in parts of Udaipur on Friday. Hindu right-wing groups gathered in the Madhuban area, setting fire to three cars and throwing stones. Shops were ransacked, and provocative slogans were chanted outside dargahs and mosques.
In response to the violence, the district administration imposed prohibitory orders and suspended internet services in parts of Udaipur for 24 hours. Schools were also closed.
The People’s Union for Civil Liberties condemned the “bulldozer justice” against the Muslim boy’s family. The group’s president, Kavita Srivastava, noted that while over 200 houses exist in the area, only the juvenile’s family was targeted, raising concerns about communal motives.
