“You can get homesick at home, you know?”

Afreen Fatima, an activist from the northern Indian city of Prayagraj, feels that way sometimes.

In the summer of 2022, Ms. Fatima’s childhood home is a yellow-brick, two-story house in the bustling depths of the city. demolished by authorities overnight.

The house was demolished after his father, a local politician named Javed Mohammad, was arrested and named the “main conspirator” of a protest by Muslims that turned violent.

He denies the allegations and has never been found guilty of any crimes linked to the June 2022 protests.

The family is just one of many, but hopefully among the last, who find themselves at the mercy of so-called “bulldozer justice” as authorities swiftly demolish the homes of those accused of crimes.

India’s supreme court on Wednesday banned the practice, which has been on the rise in recent years, especially in states ruled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Although the victims included Hindu families, critics say the action mostly targeted India’s 200 million Muslims, especially in the wake of religious violence or protests – a charge the BJP denies.

Chief ministers of many states linked such destruction to their governments’ tough-on-crime stance. However, the official justification is that these structures were built illegally.

Experts have repeatedly questioned this, saying there is no legal justification for it and that it makes no sense to punish one person for an alleged crime using laws designed for someone else.

Ms Fatima says that during the 20 months Mr Mohammed spent in prison (he was released on bail earlier this year) he and his family moved houses in the city twice.

It took some effort, but they finally feel settled. Still, he says there were times when their new home felt strangely foreign to him; It’s like an “adopted space” that hasn’t been experienced enough.

“It’s not the same. I spent most of my life in our old house. There are no memories here, it feels empty,” he says.

So as the court read its verdict this week, Ms Fatima was hopeful that a conclusion would finally be reached.

But the result was bittersweet.

Because although the court prohibited authorities from arbitrarily demolishing the homes and businesses of people accused or convicted of crimes, it did not mention any compensation for families, like Fatima, who were victims of such destruction in the past.

“We welcome the decision, but what about those of us who have lost our homes?” he says.

This practice had become commonplace: In 2022, authorities in five states razed 128 structures in just three months “as punishment.” A report by Amnesty International shows that.

In its decision, which lasted more than 95 pages, the court heavily criticized the state governments, saying that “it cannot be a judge and decide that an accused person is guilty and therefore punish him”.

In the decision, it was stated that the imposition of this penalty “reminds us of an unlawful situation where force is justified.”

The court then issued a set of guidelines requiring authorities to give at least 15 days’ notice to occupants of an illegal structure before it is demolished and to publicly disclose the reason for the demolition. The decision stated that if a demolition is carried out wrongly, all public officials will be held personally liable under Indian law.

Rights groups, lawyers and opposition leaders hailed the order as a “turning point” in tackling unfair practices that have gone unchecked for years. “The time these guidelines chose to be published is late – but better late than never!” in question Delhi-based lawyer Gautam Bhatia.

Govind Mathur, a judge and a former chief justice of the high court, concedes that the judgment does not mention anything related to victims but adds that it “does not restrict the claims of such persons for compensation”.

“If an action is against the law, the victim can always demand compensation. The wrong done will remain wrong and the price for it must be paid by those who made the mistake,” he says.

Justice Mathur adds that the order is a “strong message to the state machinery to act in accordance with the law and not in line with political bosses”.

However, Ms. Fatima points out that the truth is not that simple.

More than two years have passed since his family first challenged the demolition in the high court. But he says not a single hearing was held.

He still remembers the day it all happened. Spectators glued themselves to the corner to watch as the excavator crashed into their homes. Many of them had cameras and phones in their hands. Fatima, who watched the destruction from a relative’s house on her phone, remembers feeling numb.

He thought about his room and the multitude of souvenirs and furniture stored there. There were stories everywhere; precious everyday memories like the times he spent with his sister and the lively family discussions around the dinner table. “All that is gone,” he says.

While Ms. Fatima’s family has been able to rebuild their lives to some extent, others say they are still in limbo.

“We are on the streets with almost nothing and no one,” says Reshma, a daily wage earner in the state of Rajasthan. In September, Reshma’s house in Udaipur was demolished on grounds of unlawful rape, a day after her eight-year-old brother allegedly stabbed a classmate.

While the child was detained and sent to the child welfare institution, his father was arrested on charges of soliciting murder. Since then, Reshma, her mother and sister have been living in a small shanty on the edges of the city.

He says the court decision is meaningless for them. “We want real help, some money or compensation to rebuild our lives, it doesn’t change anything.”

Like Ms. Fatima, Reshma’s family also challenged the demolition in court. Legal experts say the Supreme Court’s directions could potentially impact the way such pending cases are heard in the future.

“This judgment will change a lot of things; the courts will have to see whether legal processes were followed while carrying out these demolitions,” senior Supreme Court lawyer CU Singh said. said BBC Hindi.

Ms. Fatima is not entirely sure whether the court order will actually stop the demolitions.

But his father says Mr Mohammed is full of hope.

Sometimes he catches his father thinking about their old house; sofas, rugs, books on the shelves, most likely still buried under the rubble, that he had carefully put together.

“She did most of the improvements herself, from the curtains to the cushion covers. Losing the house broke her heart more than anyone else,” she says.

But Mr Mohammad does not want to linger on the pain and is already busy making new improvements at home and in his life. “He keeps telling me that this is a historic order and that we need to talk about it as much as we can,” his daughter says.

“Just like this house, we rebuild lives and renew our memories.”