Court Bans 'Bulldozer Justice' in India but Leaves Victims without Redress**

As the Indian Supreme Court outlaws the arbitrary demolition of homes tied to criminal allegations, victims like Afreen Fatima and Reshma, impacted by this practice, seek support and compensation for their losses. Despite the landmark ruling, questions remain on how the past will be rectified for those already affected.**

The recent ruling by India's Supreme Court has labeled the once-common practice of 'bulldozer justice' illegal, aiming to safeguard citizens from the arbitrary demolition of their homes under allegations of criminal involvement. This decision comes after a string of demolitions primarily targeting Muslim families in the wake of protests and violence, drawing widespread criticism.

Activist Afreen Fatima's experience epitomizes the struggle many face. Her home in Prayagraj was demolished in 2022 after her father, a local politician named Javed Mohammad, was implicated in a protest that spiraled into violence. Despite his claims of innocence and the fact that he has yet to be convicted of any crime related to the protests, the family lost their two-story yellow-brick house overnight.

The court's decision aims to prevent a recurrence of such arbitrary actions, forcing authorities to provide at least 15 days' notice before demolitions and to explain their rationale publicly. The ruling, however, has left many families, like Afreen's, questioning the lack of mention of compensation or restoration for those who have already suffered losses.

While the ruling represents a critical step forward in a battle against injustice, it has sparked frustration. Afreen noted that her family has moved twice since the demolition and still feels a sense of emptiness in their new living space. “It feels like an adopted space which has not been lived in enough,” she reflected on her experience of losing not just a home, but the memories ingrained within those walls.

The court’s guidance may influence pending legal battles regarding demolitions, as it insists on adherence to due process in future cases. Yet, there is an urgent call from victims for immediate assistance and reparations. Reshma, another victim whose home was demolished due to alleged illegal encroachment, expressed her despair. “We want actual help, some money or compensation to rebuild our lives,” as her family struggles with the aftermath of the unjust demolition.

The judgment is hailed as a turning point by rights groups, lawyers, and opposition leaders, who emphasize its implications for state governance and law enforcement. However, without remedies for past victims, the measure risks being seen as hollow. Legal experts suggest that denying victims compensation does not eliminate their claims for justice.

In light of a potential shift, Afreen’s father, Javed, maintains hope and determination, actively seeking to rebuild their lives despite their past heartbreak. He views the court’s ruling as historic, emphasizing a collective responsibility to discuss and promote awareness around it. While memories of their former home remain, there lies an underlying strength as they aspire to renovate their lives and reclaim their narratives in the face of adversity.