Bhopal: As a devotional Hindu song called Govinda Govinda blared over a sound system and drums were beaten under police escort, municipal officials in the western Madhya Pradesh city of Ujjain on 19 July 2023 razed a three-storey building belonging to Ashraf Hussain Mansoori (43).
It was razed within half an hour of serving a backdated demolition notice addressed to his dead mother, leaving a dozen men, women and children from three families homeless, most of whom had no criminal record and had not been accused of a crime.
The demolition came two days after a group of Hindu youth accused three teenagers, including two minors, of intentionally spitting on a Hindu religious procession from the roof of their building.
As rumours spread that Muslims had spat on the religious procession, many in the rally abused Mansoori’s family and Muslims in general, and Hindu fundamentalists gathered outside the local Kharakua police station demanding action.
On the complaint of one Sawan Lot (28), a “devotee” who came with friends from Indore, 55 km to the north, to join the religious procession, the Ujjain police arrested three teenagers under five sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: 295-A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings), 153-A (offence committed in a place of worship), 296 (disturbing religious assembly), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) .
Two of the accused and arrested were Mansoori’s sons, aged 18 and 15. The third was their friend, also 15.
Five months later, on 15 December 2023, the complainant Sawan Lot, and his friend and witness Ajay Khatri turned hostile before the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court, saying they had neither identified the accused nor had they seen them spitting on the procession.
In written statements, they deposed before the court that police had them sign on the complaint, even though their account did not match a portion of the first information report (FIR).
On 15 December 2023, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court granted bail to Adnan Mansoori, Ashraf’s 18-year-old son, the only adult accused in the case and who had been in jail for 151 days since 18 July.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anil Verma said the court had considered the facts and circumstances, the arguments on both sides and had taken note of the fact that the complainant, Sawan Lot, had turned hostile. He “... did not support the case of prosecution” and had also denied a relevant portion of the FIR, said the order.
Ajay Khatri, the eyewitness, had also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case, the judge observed.
A former high court justice, two former director generals of police and a Supreme Court lawyer that Article 14 spoke to in July 2023 said the arrests of the teens, the drums and the demolition of the Mansooris’ homes did not follow due process and were illegal and violative of the Constitution.
The razing of the Mansooris’ building mirrored similar demolitions of properties occupied by or belonging to alleged criminals, particularly in states directly administered by or otherwise controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
While Ujjain itself witnessed more than two dozen such demolitions over the past year, other states where similar razing of property of alleged wrong-doers have been undertaken in recent years—in violation of Supreme Court orders that no property may be demolished on the ground of being an unauthorised construction without giving the owner an opportunity for a hearing—include New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh (MP) and Gujarat. This collective punishment (see here, here and here) has primarily targeted Muslims.
In the Mansooris’ case, the excuse used by the municipal corporation, that the building was “dangerous”, was not backed by evidence, and the statements of various officials were in conflict, Article 14 had reported.
Despite repeated attempts over a week to seek comment from Ujjain superintendent of police Sachin Sharma, he remained unavailable.
Minor Accused Got Bail On Appeal To HC
Justice Verma’s order noted that the investigation was complete, and Adnan Mansoori did not have a criminal record. “...in view of the above, I deem it proper to release the applicant on bail,” the court said.
Vivek Singh, Adnan Mansoori's counsel in the high court, told Article 14 that the complainant and the witness had deposed before the court saying they had not identified the accused, nor had they been in agreement with the relevant portions of the FIR.
Adnan’s bail came two months after the Indore high court granted bail to both the minors, on 19 September 2023.
The decisions of the juvenile court, on two occasions, to reject their bail petitions were an “error” in light of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, said Justice Verma, adding that there was no possibility that the two minors would get associated with known criminals, or be exposed to “moral, physical or psychological danger” if they were released on bail.
Holding the rejection of bail for the minors to be not sustainable in law, Justice Verma said the juvenile justice board “committed jurisdictional error and illegality” in passing the orders. He directed the minors to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 each.
On 19 July and then again on 24 July, the minors’ lawyer Umesh Sharma applied for them to be released on bail, but the juvenile justice board and then a children’s court turned down the applications.
Video Evidence Cited But Never Produced
Police also failed to produce in court videos of the incident that were mentioned in the FIR.
Advocate Devendra Sengar, who appeared for Adnan Mansoori in the lower court and assisted in the high court petition, said the chargesheet filed by the Ujjain police cited only one video of the alleged incident as evidence. “They said it showed a minor in a skullcap seen standing on the roof with a water bottle in one hand,” he said.
In the high court, the police sought time to present the video evidence, “but it didn’t happen,” said Sengar.
Sawal Lot, in the FIR lodged at Kharakua police station on 17 July 2023, said he had come to Ujjain on a pilgrimage with his friends Yogesh Bagmar and Ajay Khatri, to take part in the religious procession. Lot accused Ashraf Hussain’s son Adnan Mansoori, who had just turned 18 years old in May 2023, and the two minors of spitting water on the religious procession from the roof with an intent to hurt religious sentiments.
“This incident has offended my religious sentiments and those of the entire community,” Lot said in the FIR. He was recorded as having submitted two videos captured by his friend Mausam Jaiswal to back his claim, according to the FIR.
Complainant, Witness Say Police Misquoted Them
In a written statement to Ujjain’s first-class judicial magistrate Priyanka Solanki on 28 October 2023, Sawan Lot said he went to Ujjain with his friends to see the ‘Mahakal Sawari’ (procession with an idol of the temple deity) on 17 July 2023. Around 7 pm, a ruckus broke out near the Tanki Square area o f Ujjain, and police evacuated the area, taking some devotees to the Kharakua police station, including Lot.
In a three-page testimony accessed by Article14, Lot said it was upon reaching the police station that he found out someone had spat on the procession. “I have not seen anyone doing it. But when police personnel asked to sign some papers, I did without asking the reason,” his testimony said, in Hindi. “I don’t know who, when and what was written in the FIR.”
Lot said he realised later that police took his signature on his statement and a panchnama (an inquest report by police including accounts of five witnesses), based on which the FIR was lodged and a chargesheet filed.
“I was misquoted in many places,” Lot said, referring to the FIR. He said he had not claimed that Musam Jaiswal, who shot the video of the incident, was his friend. He said he did not say that the incident had offended his religious sentiments. “
Police never actually took my statement,” he alleged.
Lot's testimony said he was also wrongly quoted in the panchnama about having viewed the videos before the arrest to confirm the identity of the accused. “I have no knowledge of this,” he said. “I don’t know why the police wrote this in the report.”
Almost two weeks after Lot’s testimony, on 11 November 2023, the witness Ajay Khatri gave his written statement before the first-class judicial magistrate.
Khatri said police took them to the police station, where there were about 40-50 people. “After almost an hour, police personnel called me on the first floor, asked my name and address before taking my signature on some papers,” his testimony said. “I don’t know what the police wrote on those.”
Khatri's two-page statement further said he neither witnessed the alleged incident nor was he present when it happened. He did not know the accused or could not identify them, he said.
Like Lot, Khatri also said that police had misquoted him in the FIR.
Ujjain Municipality’s Celebratory Demolition
Hours after the FIR was filed, in a late-night action, Ujjain police arrested all three accused from their homes.
A day after the arrest, when the family was preparing to eat breakfast around 9 am on 19 July 2023, Ashraf Hussain Mansoori received a phone call from an officer at the local police station. “Aapke bete ne galat kaam kiya hai, ghar todna padega [Your son has committed a crime, your house will have to be demolished],” said the officer, in the senior Mansoori’s words.
Half an hour later, at 9.30 am, a municipal officer pasted a notice on the ground floor of the three-storey building where the three Mansoori brothers and their parents had lived, for more than half a century.
“This is to inform you that your dangerous construction has not been razed so far,” read the notice pasted to the Mansooris’ gate, addressed to Shahjan Bee, the Mansoori brothers’ mother, who died in 2009. The notice said the family was being informed as per section 436 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, “for the last time,” that they must remove their dangerous building or that it would be removed by the administration. “... and you will be liable to pay for the labour charges of the demolition.”
The notice was backdated to 15 July, the phrase “avaidh nirman” or illegal construction scored out and replaced with “khatarnak bhavan” or dangerous building.
That, alleged Ashraf Hussain Mansoori later, was because the building was not illegal. Had it been an unauthorised construction, according to the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the government would have to give him a 14-day notice and wait for his explanation before further action.
About an hour after the notice was pasted, a bulldozer arrived, accompanied by drummers and a truck with loudspeakers
As the Mansooris and their stupefied families watched, a devotional Hindu song “Govinda Govinda”, sung by popular singer Kailash Kher, blared out of the loudspeakers, drummers beat their drums, a police posse watched and within two hours, their home on Chandrashekhar Azad Lane in Tanki Chowk—and the little provision store that Ahsraf Hussain Mansoori ran on the ground floor—was reduced to rubble.
A dozen men, women and children from three families were rendered homeless, most of whom have no criminal record and were never accused of a crime. The excuse used by the municipal corporation, that the building was “dangerous”, was not backed by any evidence.
Hours after the demolition, Ashish Agarwal, spokesperson of the Madhya Pradesh BJP, issued a statement indicating how the government intended to proceed with the case.
“Those who insult Lord Shiva will have to be prepared for a Shiv tandav (dance of destruction) as well,” said Agarwal. “This is Shivraj Chouhan’s government where there is not only action taken against the accused but the action is so strict that it breaks their willpower.”
About the demolition, advocate Sengar said the district administration had taken a similar stand in some unrelated cases. He cited a case in which Muslim shopkeepers accused of selling prohibited Chinese kite strings in Ujjain found their homes razed.
Sengar said, “The city has countless ‘illegal’ or dangerous constructions but the municipal corporation only wakes up when the accused belong to the minority community.”
Referring to a demolition carried out in the fallout of the 25 December 2020 clash in Ujjain, Sengar said the government ordered the bulldozing of an illegal building from which a Muslim woman was seen in a video, pelting stones. When officials arrived at the spot, it emerged that the building belonged to a Hindu; the Muslim woman had been a tenant.
“Subsequently, the corporation razed the adjacent building which belonged to a Muslim who had nothing to do with the clash,” said Sengar.
Sengar is representing several Muslims in cases related to illegal demolition, wrongful arrest, allegations that they raised pro-Pakistan slogans, etc.
Meanwhile, the Mansooris have lived for the last five months in a rented home, earning a livelihood by running the shop that was bulldozed by the administration along with their three-storey building. “With minimum repairs, we reopened the shop to feed the family,” said Asgar Hussain Mansoori, the elder brother of Ashraf Hussain Mansoori.
Reconstructing the demolished home will be tougher, requiring finances and permissions.
Even with the complainant and witness turning hostile in the court, the family had no plans to file a complaint against the municipal corporation or the police officials who filed the FIR on superficial allegations without any evidence.
“We thank god that our children have returned home,” said Akbar Hussain, Ashraf Hussain’s other brother. “We want nothing else.”
(Kashif Kakvi is a multimedia journalist who covers Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.