Bhopal: In Ujjain, western Madhya Pradesh, on July 19, 2023, municipal officials, accompanied by police, swiftly demolished a three-story building owned by Ashraf Hussain Mansoori (43) to the resonating tunes of the devotional Hindu song “Govinda Govinda” and the rhythmic beats of drums. The demolition occurred just half an hour after serving a backdated notice, supposedly addressed to Mansoori’s deceased mother. This abrupt action left a dozen individuals, spanning three families, and homeless, with most lacking any criminal record or accusations.
The demolition transpired following an accusation by a group of Hindu youth, who claimed that three teenagers, including two minors, had deliberately spat on a Hindu religious procession from the rooftop of Mansoori’s building. As rumors circulated about Muslims allegedly spitting on the religious procession, attendees of the rally verbally abused Mansoori’s family and Muslims in general. Outside the local Kharakua police station, Hindu fundamentalists gathered, demanding swift action.
Based on a complaint filed by Sawan Lot (28), a devotee from Indore who traveled 55 km to join the religious procession, the Ujjain police arrested the 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 (offense 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). Among the accused were Mansoori’s sons, aged 18 and 15, and their 15-year-old friend.
Five months later, on December 15, 2023, Sawan Lot and his friend, witness Ajay Khatri, recanted their statements before the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court. They asserted that they had neither identified the accused nor witnessed them spitting on the procession. In written statements, they disclosed that the police had coerced them to sign the complaint, despite inconsistencies with a portion of the First Information Report (FIR).
On the same date, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh high court granted bail to Adnan Mansoori, Ashraf’s 18-year-old son, who had been incarcerated for 151 days since July 18. The judge noted that Ajay Khatri, the eyewitness, had also turned hostile, failing to support the prosecution’s case.
In July 2023, Article 14 interviewed a former high court justice, two former director generals of police, and a Supreme Court lawyer, all of whom asserted that the arrests of the teenagers, the drumming, and the demolition of the Mansooris’ homes were not in accordance with due process and were illegal, violating the Constitution.
The demolition of the Mansooris’ building mirrored similar actions targeting properties of alleged wrongdoers, especially in states directly administered or controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Over the past year, Ujjain itself experienced more than two dozen such demolitions. Other states where such property demolitions have occurred in recent years, in violation of Supreme Court orders prohibiting the demolition of unauthorized constructions without affording the owner an opportunity for a hearing, include New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh (MP), and Gujarat. Notably, this form of collective punishment, primarily targeting Muslims, has been documented.
In the Mansooris’ case, the municipal corporation’s claim that the building was “dangerous” lacked evidential support, and conflicting statements from various officials were reported by Article 14.
Despite numerous attempts over a week to obtain comments from Ujjain Superintendent of Police Sachin Sharma, he remained unavailable.
The judge noted that Ajay Khatri, the eyewitness, had also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case.
Website ‘Article 14’ spoke to a former high court justice, two former director generals of police, and a Supreme Court lawyer in July 2023, who unanimously stated that the arrests of the teenagers, the drumming, and the demolition of the Mansooris’ homes were not conducted in accordance with due process, being deemed illegal and violative of the Constitution.
The demolition of the Mansooris’ building reflected similar incidents targeting properties of alleged wrongdoers, particularly in states directly administered or controlled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Ujjain alone witnessed over two dozen such demolitions in the past year. Other states, such as New Delhi, Madhya Pradesh (MP), and Gujarat, have similarly engaged in property demolitions in recent years, in contravention of Supreme Court orders prohibiting the demolition of unauthorized constructions without giving the owner an opportunity for a hearing. This form of collective punishment, primarily affecting Muslims, has been extensively documented.
In the Mansooris’ situation, the municipal corporation’s claim that the building was “dangerous” lacked supporting evidence, and Article 14 reported conflicting statements from various officials.
Despite making multiple attempts over a week to obtain comments from Ujjain Superintendent of Police Sachin Sharma, he remained unresponsive, accoridng to ‘Article 14’.
The judge observed that Ajay Khatri, the eyewitness, had also become uncooperative and did not endorse the prosecution’s case.
The excuse presented by the municipal corporation in the Mansooris’ case, asserting that the building was “dangerous,” was not substantiated by evidence, and various officials’ statements were contradictory, as reported by Article 14.
Despite persistent efforts over a week to secure a response from Ujjain Superintendent of Police Sachin Sharma, he remained unattainable.
The order from Justice Verma highlighted that the investigation was concluded, and Adnan Mansoori had no criminal record. Considering these factors, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant.
Vivek Singh, Adnan Mansoori’s counsel in the high court, informed Article 14 that both the complainant and the witness had testified in court, stating that they had not identified the accused and were not in agreement with the relevant portions of the FIR.
Adnan’s bail was granted two months after the Indore high court had already granted bail to both minors on September 19, 2023.
Justice Verma remarked that the juvenile court’s decisions to reject their bail petitions on two occasions were deemed as “errors” in light of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The judge emphasized that there was no possibility of the two minors associating with known criminals or being exposed to “moral, physical, or psychological danger” if released on bail.
On July 19 and again on July 24, the minors’ lawyer, Umesh Sharma, submitted bail applications, which were turned down by the juvenile justice board and subsequently by a children’s court.
Despite being mentioned in the FIR, the police failed to present court videos of the incident as evidence. Advocate Devendra Sengar, who represented Adnan Mansoori in the lower court and assisted in the high court petition, pointed out that the chargesheet filed by the Ujjain police referred to only one video of the alleged incident as evidence. According to Sengar, the video purportedly showed a minor in a skullcap standing on the roof with a water bottle in hand.
In the high court proceedings, the police requested time to provide the video evidence, but this did not materialize, as noted by Sengar.
Sawal Lot, in the FIR lodged at Kharakua police station on July 17, 2023, claimed that he had come to Ujjain on a pilgrimage with his friends Yogesh Bagmar and Ajay Khatri to participate in the religious procession. Lot accused Adnan Mansoori, who had recently turned 18 in May 2023, and the two minors of spitting water on the religious procession from the roof with the intent to hurt religious sentiments.
However, in a written statement to Ujjain’s first-class judicial magistrate Priyanka Solanki on October 28, 2023, Sawan Lot stated that he went to Ujjain with his friends to witness the ‘Mahakal Sawari’ (procession with an idol of the temple deity) on July 17, 2023. Around 7 pm, a disturbance occurred near the Tanki Square area of Ujjain, and the police evacuated the area, taking some devotees, including Lot, to the Kharakua police station.
Lot revealed that he later realized that the police had taken 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 was filed.
Lot asserted that he was misquoted in many places, specifically referring to the FIR. He clarified that he did not claim Musam Jaiswal, who recorded the video of the incident, as his friend, and he did not state that the incident had offended his religious sentiments.
“Police never actually took my statement,” he alleged.
Lot testified that he was incorrectly quoted in the panchnama regarding having viewed videos before the arrest to confirm the identity of the accused. He stated, “I have no knowledge of this,” expressing confusion about why the police included this information in the report.
Nearly two weeks after Lot’s testimony, on November 11, 2023, witness Ajay Khatri provided his written statement before the first-class judicial magistrate. Khatri’s two-page statement emphasized that he neither witnessed the alleged incident nor was present when it occurred. He asserted that he did not know the accused and could not identify them. Similar to Lot, Khatri claimed that the police had misquoted him in the FIR.
Following the filing of the FIR, Ujjain police arrested all three accused from their homes in a late-night operation. The day after the arrest, around 9 am on July 19, 2023, Ashraf Hussain Mansoori received a phone call from a local police station officer informing him, “Your son has committed a crime, your house will have to be demolished.”
Thirty minutes later, at 9:30 am, a municipal officer affixed a notice on the ground floor of the three-story building where the Mansoori brothers and their parents had lived for more than half a century. Addressed to Shahjan Bee, the Mansoori brothers’ deceased mother, the notice stated, “This is to inform you that your dangerous construction has not been razed so far.” It notified the family, for the last time as per section 436 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, that they must remove their dangerous building or face its removal by the administration. The notice warned of the family being liable to pay for the labor charges of the demolition.
Ashraf Hussain Mansoori later alleged that the reason for this action was that the building was not illegal. Had it been an unauthorized construction, according to the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the government would have had to issue him a 14-day notice and wait for his explanation before taking further action.
Approximately an hour after the notice was affixed, a bulldozer, accompanied by drummers and a truck with loudspeakers, arrived. As the Mansooris and their astonished families looked on, a devotional Hindu song, “Govinda Govinda,” performed by the popular singer Kailash Kher, blared from the loudspeakers. Drummers played their drums, a police contingent observed, and within two hours, their residence on Chandrashekhar Azad Lane in Tanki Chowk—and the small provision store run by Ahsraf Hussain Mansoori on the ground floor—was reduced to rubble.
A dozen men, women, and children from three families were left homeless, the majority of whom had no criminal record and were never accused of any crime. The municipal corporation’s excuse that the building was “dangerous” lacked any supporting evidence.
Following the demolition, Ashish Agarwal, spokesperson for the Madhya Pradesh BJP, issued a statement outlining the government’s intentions in the case.
Regarding the demolition, advocate Sengar noted that the district administration had taken a similar stance in unrelated cases. He cited an instance where Muslim shopkeepers accused of selling prohibited Chinese kite strings in Ujjain had their homes razed. Referring to a demolition carried out in the aftermath of the December 25, 2020 clash in Ujjain, Sengar recounted a situation where an illegal building, from which a Muslim woman was seen in a video pelting stones, was initially targeted. However, upon arrival, officials discovered that the building belonged to a Hindu; the Muslim woman had been a tenant. Subsequently, the corporation razed the adjacent building owned by a Muslim who had no connection to the clash, according to Sengar.
Representing several Muslims in cases related to illegal demolition, wrongful arrest, and allegations of raising pro-Pakistan slogans, Sengar highlighted the broader pattern of such incidents.
Meanwhile, for the past five months, the Mansooris have resided in a rented home, sustaining their livelihood by reopening the shop that was bulldozed along with their three-story building. Asgar Hussain Mansoori, the elder brother of Ashraf Hussain Mansoori, mentioned that they managed to reopen the shop with minimal repairs to support the family. Rebuilding the demolished home will be more challenging, requiring both finances and permissions.
Even with the complainant and witness turning hostile in court, the family has no plans to file a complaint against the municipal corporation or the police officials who filed the FIR based on superficial allegations without any evidence.
“We thank God that our children have returned home,” expressed Akbar Hussain, Ashraf Hussain’s other brother. “We want nothing else.
