Stop The Bulldozer Raj: Condemn the spree of evictions across Kolkata: Defend Livelihoods, Democracy and the Rights of Hawkers and Slum Dwellers in Bengal and Across India
napm india
Stop The Bulldozer Raj: Condemn the spree of evictions across Kolkata
Defend Livelihoods, Democracy and the Rights of Hawkers and
Slum Dwellers in Bengal and Across India
13th June, 2026: All India Workers Forum and National Forum of Urban Struggles of NAPM strongly condemn the recent wave of demolition drives across Kolkata, destroying the livelihoods of hawkers, small traders, vendors and slum dwellers at Sealdah, Howrah, Dum Dum, Jadavpur and beyond. What the authorities call ‘development’ and ‘beautification’ is, in reality, the overnight destruction of homes and businesses that working-class families have built with sweat and toil, over decades. We demand an immediate halt to all coercive evictions and demolition drives affecting hawkers, vendors, slum dwellers and informal workers in Bengal and call for genuine consultation with hawkers' organisations, trade unions and affected communities. We also demand strict compliance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court (Nov 2024) on demolitions, including the mandatory 15-day notice period.
About a month back, on the night of 16th – 17th May, railway authorities and security forces demolished kiosks and stalls at Sealdah station under the Amrit Bharat Station Scheme. Similar drives followed at Howrah on 16th May, at Dum Dum Junction on the night of 31st May, and at Jadavpur on the night of 7th-8th June. At Jadavpur, when hawkers, students and trade union activists sat peacefully before bulldozers, they were met with lathi-charges and arrests. Elderly hawkers were left searching through rubble for remnants of their lives. Students and activists were beaten for standing in solidarity with workers. (see Annexure for chronology of demolitions). When affected communities sought dialogue, they were ignored. Their demand was simple: If ‘redevelopment’ must happen, rehabilitation must come first. That demand has not been answered to this day.
Part of A National Pattern: The BJP's Bulldozer Raj:
What is happening in Kolkata must be understood in its national context. Across India, the BJP has made the ‘bulldozer’ a signature instrument of political power and abuse. From Uttar Pradesh to Madhya Pradesh to Rajasthan, demolition drives have been deployed not as urban planning tools but as spectacles of state dominance, targeted overwhelmingly at the working poor, migrant workers and informal workers (often minorities), who have the fewest resources to resist and the least political protection. With each bulldozer deployed, the BJP signals to its ‘base’ that it is willing to use force against those it has deemed expendable. Democratic accountability is eroded every time a community's home or livelihood is erased overnight by executive decree.
Research organisations have documented a 379% rise in demolitions across India over five years, revealing a shift from ‘development-driven’ urban eviction to a new, punitive use of the bulldozer as a political tool - one that bypasses due process, flouts constitutional protections, and falls hardest on the urban poor, informal workers – mostly from oppressed castes and religious minorities .
These actions intensify labour precarity and daily survival for those in the informal economy - workers who are economically indispensable yet politically unprotected. The bulldozer has become an instrument for restructuring who gets to inhabit the city and on whose terms. The pattern is the same wherever the bulldozer appears: working people are labelled "encroachers," denied notice or rehabilitation, and evicted overnight. The drives in West Bengal conducted under the Railway Authority and enabled by the BJP Government are a direct continuation of this national phenomenon.
The Courts Have Spoken: The Government Must Comply:
These actions are not merely unjust. They are illegal. In November 2024, the Supreme Court of India declared that bulldozer demolitions reminded it of a "lawless, ruthless state of affairs." The Court held that such demolitions violated the fundamental right to shelter under Articles 19 and 21, amounted to collective punishment of entire families, and represented the executive usurping the role of the judiciary. It issued pan-India guidelines requiring a minimum 15-day notice period before any demolition, warning that violations would constitute contempt of court. (See Annexure)
Every demolition drive documented here - conducted overnight, without notice, without rehabilitation is in direct defiance of the Apex Court’s guidelines. The BJP, which has celebrated the bulldozer as a ‘symbol of governance’, is operating in contempt of the Supreme Court of India. In the Brace Bridge case, Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya issued a stay order against Eastern Railways' eviction drive targeting nearly 6,000 residents, finding that no notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 had been issued, no hearing had been granted, and no order had been passed by a duly appointed Estate Officer, in direct violation of due process and the constitutional right to shelter and livelihood under Article 21.
These judicial interventions expose a fundamental truth: the government does not have the legal authority to do what it is doing. The bulldozer is not the law. The Constitution is.
Why This Matters for Everyone:
Kolkata remains one of India's most affordable cities not because of corporate generosity, but because of millions of informal workers. The jhalmuri seller at Sealdah, the fruit seller on a crowded pavement, the bookseller near a college, the tea vendor outside a station gate — they are not ‘obstacles’ to development. They are Citymakers: they are the reason the city works. Destroying their livelihoods does not build a modern city. It only builds a cruel one.
NAPM stands in unflinching solidarity with the hawkers, vendors, workers and families whose homes and livelihoods are under attack. Their struggle for survival and dignity is also a struggle for constitutional rights, economic justice and the principle that development must serve people, not dispossess them. The BJP's Bulldozer Raj has no place in a constitutional democracy. What is being done to the working poor of Kolkata today is what has been done to working people across India, wherever this politics of the bulldozer has taken root. It is time all of us oppose these corrosive assaults on our democracy.
NAPM demands:
1. An immediate halt to all coercive evictions and demolition drives affecting hawkers, vendors, slum dwellers, informal workers in Kolkata and elsewhere.
2. No family should lose their home or livelihood until the government guarantees them a real and improved alternative housing and livelihood in the vicinity.
3. Full public disclosure of all redevelopment and eviction plans for railway stations and public spaces.
4. Genuine consultation with hawkers' organisations, trade unions and affected communities, including women, before any eviction.
5. Strict compliance with the Supreme Court's November 2024 pan-India guidelines on demolitions, including the mandatory 15-day notice period.
6. An independent inquiry into the use of force, lathi-charges and unlawful detentions at recent protests in Kolkata.
7. Recognition of the indispensable role of informal workers in Kolkata's economy and daily life.
Shehri Rashtriya Andolankari Manch (SHRAM) of NAPM stands against unjust, unsustainable urbanization & inequitable cities. We strive for inclusive cities, housing, livelihoods & labour rights, towards dignity and justice for the urban working communities & citizens. The homes of workers, street vendors and hawkers may be made of tin, tarpaulin or brick - but they are homes. The city relies on these workers every single day. They are Citymakers. The state cannot treat their existence as ‘illegal’ and bulldoze their homes and futures. The Constitution Must Prevail.
No
Governance Without Due Process!
No ‘Re-Development’ Without Rightful Rehabilitation!
No Democracy Without the Right to Dissent!!
Issued by: All India Workers Forum and National Urban Struggles Forum of National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM)
E-mail napm...@gmail.com
Annexure:
Table 1: Consolidated List of Rights Violations in Kolkata - By Incident
Table 2: Key Court Rulings Establishing Rights of Street Vendors and Hawkers
Annexure
Table 1: Consolidated List of Rights Violations in Kolkata - by Incident
|
Date |
Location |
Rights violations recorded |
Source |
|
5 May 2026 |
New Market |
No notice; politically motivated; communal dimension omitted from press statement |
|
|
12 May 2026 |
Tiljala |
No notice (confirmed by HC petition); no rehabilitation; families homeless overnight |
|
|
16 May 2026 |
Howrah |
~500 combined evictions (with Sealdah); no rehabilitation; no notice |
|
|
Night, 16–17 May |
Sealdah |
Overnight demolition; no notice; no rehabilitation; Art. 19(1)(g) and Art. 21 violated |
|
|
Night, 31 May–1 Jun |
Dum Dum |
Rehabilitation refused; overnight demolition; no due process |
|
|
Night, 7–8 Jun 2026 |
Jadavpur |
Lathi-charges; 5 arrests; MP injured; written assurances broken; right to assembly violated |
**The above list is not exhaustive and only indicative of some incidents.
Table 2: Key Court Rulings Establishing Rights of Street Vendors and Hawkers
|
Case title |
Court |
Main Ruling Establishing Rights |
|
Sodan Singh & Others v. New Delhi
Municipal Committee & Anr. |
Supreme Court |
Hawking is a Fundamental Right The Constitution Bench ruled that street trading is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). Established that hawking is an "age-old vocation" and a legitimate trade covered by constitutional protection. The state may impose reasonable regulations under Article 19(6) but cannot deny the right to trade altogether. State inaction in framing regulatory schemes would itself negate citizens' fundamental right. |
|
Olga Tellis & Ors. v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation & Ors. |
Supreme Court |
Right to Life includes Right to Livelihood Landmark ruling establishing that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to livelihood. Held that evicting pavement and slum dwellers without providing alternative accommodation or due process violates the fundamental right to life. Deprivation of means of subsistence amounts to deprivation of life itself, and such deprivation cannot occur without a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law. |
|
Gainda Ram & Ors. v. Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Ors. |
Supreme Court |
Hawkers' Rights Require Statutory Protection; Schemes Must Be Law-Backed Affirmed that the right to hawk on streets and carry on street vending is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). Found that municipal regulatory schemes not backed by statute cannot constitutionally curtail hawkers' rights. Directed the government to legislate to regulate hawking, recognising hawkers as an "unorganised poor sector" deserving of structured protection. |
|
Sudama Singh
& Others v. Government of Delhi & Anr. |
Delhi High Court |
Right to Rehabilitation; Slum Dwellers Are Not Secondary Citizens Watershed ruling holding that forced evictions of slum dwellers without meaningful rehabilitation violate the right to life and dignity under Article 21. Declared that slum residents are not "secondary citizens" and cannot be treated as such. Mandated "meaningful engagement" with residents — not merely notice — before any eviction. Directed the government to frame a comprehensive rehabilitation policy. Established that the right to rehabilitation exists regardless of whether the land is classified as "Right of Way." Supreme Court subsequently affirmed and ordered full implementation. |
|
In Re: Directions in the
matter of demolition of structures |
Supreme Court |
Pan-India Prohibition on Bulldozer Demolitions Without Due Process Pan-India guidelines issued by Justice B.R. Gavai declaring that bulldozer demolitions by state authorities remind the Court of a "lawless, ruthless state of affairs." Held that demolitions without due process violate the right to shelter under Articles 19 and 21, constitute collective punishment of families, and represent the executive usurping the role of the judiciary. Mandated a minimum 15-day notice period before any demolition; required notices to be served personally and uploaded on municipal websites; required personal hearings. Warned that violations will be treated as contempt of court with costs recoverable from officials' salaries. Applied on a pan-India basis to all authorities. |
|
Writ Petition re: Brace
Bridge slum dwellers v. Eastern Railway |
Calcutta High Court |
Eviction Without Statutory Notice and Hearing is Unlawful Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya stayed Eastern Railways' eviction drive against nearly 6,000 slum dwellers near Brace Bridge Railway Station. Court found that no notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 had been issued, no hearing had been granted, and no Estate Officer order had been passed. Held that the 48-hour eviction notice threatening use of the RPF violated constitutional safeguards protecting the right to shelter and livelihood under Article 21. Stay in force until further orders. |
|
E.R. Kumar v. Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of 2003; ongoing Supreme Court |
Supreme Court |
Fundamental Right to Shelter for Urban Homeless Persons Landmark continuing PIL establishing the state's constitutional duty to provide adequate shelter to all urban homeless persons under Article 21. Through a series of orders issued over two decades, the Supreme Court has directed all states to provide at least one permanent 24-hour shelter for every one lakh of urban population; mandated basic amenities including blankets, food, water and sanitation; required governments to conduct comprehensive surveys of urban homeless populations; and held that failure to provide basic shelter to the urban homeless amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to life. Orders have been issued by successive bench compositions including Justice B.R. Gavai, who later authored the pan-India Bulldozer Demolitions guidelines. The case remains live as of 2025. |
|
Ajay Maken & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 11616/2015; decided 18 March 2019 Delhi High Court |
Delhi High Court |
Right to the City for Informal Workers and Slum Dwellers Landmark 104-page ruling in which the bench declared that slum dwellers possess a Right to the City — integral to the right to housing — and cannot be seen as illegal occupants without rights. The right to housing is "a bundle of rights not limited to a bare shelter over one's head": it includes the right to livelihood, health, education, food, clean water, sanitation, transport and the freedom to live in the city. No eviction may take place without a survey identifying eligible residents, meaningful consultation with those to be evicted, and advance rehabilitation arrangements. Directed authorities to draft a multi-layer protocol ensuring hassle-free rehabilitation, with in-situ upgradation or nearby relocation as the preferred outcome. Forced and unannounced evictions without consultation or resettlement plans are illegal. |
|
South Calcutta Hawkers Association v. Government of West Bengal & Ors. Calcutta HC, December 1996 Calcutta High Court |
Calcutta High Court 1996 |
Due Process Required; Forceful Eviction without Process Impermissible Directly applicable Calcutta HC ruling applying Sodan Singh and Olga Tellis to West Bengal. The Court held that hawkers and vendors cannot be forcefully evicted without following due process of law. Directed the state and municipal authority to prepare a comprehensive list of all hawkers who had been or were to be evicted from Calcutta, and to immediately formulate schemes and policies for rehabilitation in the interest of human welfare. While stopping short of mandating alternative accommodation as a legal prerequisite to eviction, the Court held that the welfare state's strong obligation to rehabilitate hawkers could — and would — be enforced by courts if the state failed to act. Invoked the Supreme Court's warning that "it would be left to the courts to protect the rights of these citizens" if authorities failed to frame adequate schemes. |