A demolition drive in Ahmedabad’s Chandola Lake locality has ignited a contentious legal and political debate over national security, human rights, and the right to shelter.
The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by slum residents, refusing to stay the demolition of homes allegedly occupied by undocumented immigrants. The state government argued that the action was not part of a routine anti-encroachment drive but a pre-emptive measure triggered by intelligence inputs following a recent terror incident in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam. State officials contended that the operation, which began Tuesday morning, was based on “sensitive national security inputs” and not subject to standard urban eviction norms. The state affidavit, signed by a senior police official, claimed that the settlements housed foreign nationals—specifically Bangladeshi immigrants—suspected of involvement in anti-national activities including document forgery, drug trafficking, and even links to global terror networks. Citing an “Al Qaeda module” allegedly connected to the area, the government emphasised the urgency of the operation.
The petition, filed by a group of 23 local residents, challenged the demolition on grounds of legality and humanity. Represented by legal counsel, the petitioners argued that no prior eviction notices were issued, violating directives set by the Supreme Court which mandate a fair warning and adequate time for residents to vacate encroachments. The plea also pointed out that many of the residents had been living in the area for over six decades and should therefore qualify for rehabilitation under the Gujarat government’s slum regularisation scheme, which applies to those settled before 2010. In court, the state argued that it could not be “hounded by principles of natural justice” in a matter involving national security. It also questioned the very identity and citizenship of the petitioners, claiming it was unable to verify their addresses or Aadhaar details and suggesting the individuals might not exist. The affidavit alleged that the plea was a legal facade to obstruct state action, describing it as “malicious” and “based on non-existent petitioners.”
As demolition machinery moved in and homes were razed, hundreds of residents were reportedly displaced. Civil society groups and human rights advocates raised concerns over the apparent absence of any rehabilitation plan for those affected. Legal representatives highlighted that in recent days, the state had detained around 1,500 individuals, claiming them to be illegal immigrants, but had subsequently released nearly 90% after confirming their Indian nationality. Despite the gravity of the claims surrounding national security, critics argue that the state must still uphold procedural fairness, especially in cases where long-settled communities are at risk. Questions have also been raised over the role of local administrative bodies, with opposition voices pointing to decades of alleged neglect and policy failure. They questioned how illegal settlements allegedly linked to serious criminal activities were allowed to flourish under successive administrations.
The political climate around the operation turned sharper after a senior state minister publicly accused opposition figures of “siding with foreign nationals,” escalating tensions between ruling and opposition parties. Meanwhile, the Gujarat Congress countered that it was the state’s prolonged inaction that enabled such settlements to expand, and accused the ruling party of attempting to deflect from its administrative lapses. With national security now intersecting urban housing rights and identity politics, the incident underscores the precarious reality of informal settlements in India’s rapidly growing cities.
