Tensions Rise in Ahmedabad as Court Backs Bulldozer Action over Security Concerns

In a dramatic legal turn, the Gujarat High Court has backed a controversial demolition drive in Ahmedabad’s Chandola Lake area, citing national security as a top priority. The court’s decision came after an urgent hearing on April 29, where a petition filed by 23 residents seeking a stay on the demolitions was dismissed.

The state government defended its actions, asserting that the operation wasn't a routine encroachment removal but a swift response to recent intelligence alerts. The government argued that the area had reportedly become a hotspot for unlawful and anti-social activities, and the recent terror attack in Pahalgam had prompted an immediate need for action.

“There were sensitive inputs following the incident in Pahalgam, and this area has had ongoing issues. Delaying the operation could have jeopardized public safety,” a senior state official told the court.

However, the petitioners, represented by senior legal counsel, countered that the demolitions were carried out without proper legal process. They emphasized that no prior notices were given, which violates established constitutional guidelines and Supreme Court directives. “Even if there are suspicions about someone’s nationality, due process must be followed. You cannot demolish homes without verifying facts,” the lawyer argued.

Allegations also surfaced that several Indian citizens were wrongly targeted. Over the past few days, more than a thousand people were reportedly detained under suspicion of being undocumented foreigners. Yet, according to the petitioners, nearly 90 percent of them were later released after being identified as Indian nationals. Despite this, many had already lost their homes in the demolition.

The High Court sided with the state, calling the government’s argument “credible and in public interest.” The court stressed the sensitive nature of the issue and said protecting citizens must take precedence.

The ruling sparked political exchanges, with leaders from opposing parties accusing each other of either shielding illegal immigrants or using the situation to deflect from administrative shortcomings.