JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA REPEATEDLY EMPHASISED that the separation of powers is the Constitution’s most effective safeguard against tyranny. In his concurring opinion in Morrison v. Olson (1988), he wrote that the Constitution does not rely on the good intentions of officials, but on the division of power among branches to prevent abuse. For Scalia, structural separation itself was the “biggest check on power.”
Each battle to save a slum from demolition leaves an indelible mark of injury on my heart, a wound that festers with the pain of displaced lives and silenced voices. I have failed in escaping unscathed from the human toll of these struggles – especially now that I see a chilling pattern. With each large-scale demolition, the state’s immediate objective of quelling dissent is but a veneer for a deeper, more insidious aim—to inflict a thousand quietly weeping wounds on our democracy. These acts, by stripping citizens of their constitutional right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution, erode the very soul of India’s democratic fabric, leaving behind a legacy of disenfranchisement and despair.
Theoretically, adult suffrage under Article 326 is decoupled from housing status, ensuring every citizen above 18 retains the right to vote, regardless of whether he resides in a castle or in a barrack. A homeless person carries the same right as a millionaire living in a mansion – and that is the essence of equality before the law.
Under the law, a voter is tagged to a constituency for convenience and making logistical arrangements for them to vote. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (‘RP Act’), under Section 19, requires only "ordinary residence" in a constituency. This test of “ordinary residence” is enabled by Article 326 which provides every adult citizen has a right to vote if such person “is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice”
In fact, the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’), in an X (formerly Twitter) post, has clarified that it will also include homeless citizens, verified through field inquiries. In practice, however, this right is undermined by bureaucratic hurdles and arbitrary voter deletions post-demolitions. The Booth Level Officers are slaves to documents showing residence.
Section 21 of the RP Act requires annual updates to electoral rolls, while Form 7 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, governs objections to voter inclusions or deletions, where the law explicitly, in Rule 19, requires a pre decisional hearing and reasonable notice to uphold natural justice.
The Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling in Sudama Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) further reinforced that evictions without prior rehabilitation violate Article 21’s guarantee of life and dignity, which encompasses the right to civic participation. The Delhi Urban Shelter Board’s 2015 Rehabilitation Policy requires in situ resettlement and relocation in extreme cases.
However, the recent spate of demolitions show that the Delhi Development Authority’s (‘DDA’) preferred mode is demolition without rehabilitation. Those who are able to navigate the legal hurdles may get alternative accommodation to EWS flats in regions far away from the urban centre. This means that voters in one part of Delhi can be removed from the electoral list once their jhuggi is demolished – on the ground that they have shifted their residence.
In this article, I advert to the weaponisation of Form 7 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, as enabled by the RP Act. I highlight that this could be a calculated move to deploy the benign electoral framework to disenfranchise the marginalised. Far from being an administrative tool for maintaining accurate voter rolls, Form 7 — intended for objections to voter inclusions or deletions — has been twisted into a mechanism for purging the poor from democratic participation. I cite three examplesSunder Nursery, Delhi: The Ugliness of Seizing Power.
In November 2023, civic authorities demolished slums near Sunder Nursery, displacing over 1,000 families under a Delhi High Court order citing post-2006 encroachments. This High Court order was passed on the basis of Google Maps, projected by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board’s advocate, to argue that the slum was an encroachment that had come up after January 1, 2006. However, post demolition, DUSIB issued a show cause notice to its lawyer for filing an affidavit contrary to its instructions.
This demolition, which some could argue was deceitful, affected the electoral make-up of the Jangpura constituency. Though many residents from demolished JJ Cluster of Sunder Nursery voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, they were excluded from the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections.
The misuse of Form 7 under the RP Act, purged 628 voters from the electoral rolls, exploiting their poverty to manipulate a tightly contested election. In January 2025, 628 Sunder Nursery residents were removed without notice, labeled “shifted” post-demolition, despite many remaining in nearby camps.
It is noteworthy that there was a perception that slum dwellers favoured the previous dispensation. In fact, in an attempt to woo them, a party had attempted “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahan Makaan” promise, and doled out DDA’s EWS flats. In constituencies, with close margins, this exclusion could sway results, as seen in similar cases where deletions targeted migrants and minorities.
In the context of Bihar’s electoral roll revision, scholars and lawyers are discussing the deletion of 65 Lakh names without following the Form 7 route. However, this Form 7, governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, mandates hearings and 15-day notices for voter deletions – which was not followed for Sunder Nursery residents. The Supreme Court’s Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer decision (1995) demands natural justice, but authorities flouted this.
Similarly, residents of Madrasi Camp, part of the Jangpura constituency, faced similar betrayal. Pre-election notices issued by the DDA and Public Works Department threatened demolition. Yet residents, hoping for in-situ housing, voted one way.
Despite holding voter IDs and DUSIB tokens proving pre-2006 residency, their homes were razed post-election, apparently under a Delhi High Court order, ignoring the Sudama Singh decision on rehabilitation. The government neither challenged this decision in the High Court, nor asked the High Court even once to reconsider its decision. It meekly complied. The limited resettlements offered by DDA are in Narela, 40 kilometres away from the original place of habitation.
It is a matter of record that after purging Sunder Nursery’s 628 voters and threatening Madrasi Camp with demolition, in the 2025 Delhi Assembly election, BJP’s Tarvinder Singh Marwah won by a mere 675 votes against AAP’s Manish Sisodia. The 628 deletions—exceeding the margin—likely swung the result, proving how demolitions weaponise voter exclusion.
Bulldozer gerrymandering in Assam
Assam has seen thousands of Bengali speaking persons (including Muslims) at risk of homelessness from evictions in 2023–24, targeting Miya Muslims labeled as "encroachers."
In Dhalpur, between 2021 and 2023, 2,000 families were evicted; names were removed from rolls without notice, forcing paid re-registrations in new areas. In 2024, Kachutali saw 1,000 voters receive deletion notices post-eviction, despite makeshift camps in the same constituency. Authorities cited "shifted" status, ignoring ECI guidelines for homeless voters (night verification without documents) implemented elsewhere in India.
In Dhubri, the houses were demolished on July 8 and on July 15 the intimation of deletion of names from the electoral list were sent. Evictions in Goalpara and Nalbarithis year displaced thousands without rehabilitation, leading to fears of citizenship erasure.
The Nalbari evictions illustrate how bulldozer politics effectively nullifies the protection implicit in a grandfather clause. The Assam Accord’s 1971 cut-off date was meant to secure continuity for settled populations. Yet families who have lived in Bakrikuchi for decades, integrated into the economy and electorate, are being displaced as “encroachers.”
By demolishing homes, schools, and mosques, the State severs the evidentiary link that anchors their residency, leaving them exposed to voter deletions under Form 7. Language and religion has been made a marker to implement disenfranchisement and subverting Article 326’s guarantee of universal suffrage.
These operations, displacing thousands of predominantly Bengali-origin Muslim families without rehabilitation, are not mere land reclamations but strategic acts of voter suppression and citizenship erasure in polarised regions.
Akbar Nagar, Lucknow: Using urban planning for political engineering
In June 2024, the Lucknow Development Authority razed 1,800 structures in Akbar Nagar, displacing 10,000 residents for the Kukrail riverfront project. Predominantly Muslim, the area housed long-term settlers with utility bills and voter IDs. The area on the left bank formed Akbar Nagar and on the right side of the ‘drain’ is Shakti Nagar. While Shakti Nagar was regularised as a colony, despite being on a flood plain, Akbar Nagar remained as a settlement and never regularised.
In view of alternatives offered, the Supreme Court upheld the demolitions but mandated rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (‘PMAY’). Yet many faced affordability issues (the flats ranged in around ₹4.8 lakh) and inadequate alternatives.
At that stage, what was not considered was that the displacement disrupted voter registration, with residents scattered to distant sites like Basant Kunj – reportedly about 12 kms away, complicating address proofs for Form 8 updates. While mass deletions are so far not reported, the chaos mirrors Delhi’s cases, potentially excluding thousands in Uttar Pradesh's 2027 polls.
The demolition of Akbar Nagar has resulted in large-scale forced displacement within the constituency, with the inevitable consequence being that all residents of Akbar Nagar (including Muslims or those from vulnerable castes) stand effectively disenfranchised. Such dislocation renders their names vulnerable to challenge under Form 7 of the RP Act, and it is only a matter of time before an interloper, acting with malice or political design, secures the wholesale deletion of these voters from the electoral rolls. Experience from Delhi and Assam shows that the Election Commission is only too willing to oblige.
This constitutes not merely administrative complicity but a grave assault on the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage under Article 326, and an impermissible dilution of the right to equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15.
Bulldozer demolitions are the new gerrymandering, in that they are intended to displace inconvenient voters especially those from the poor communities, strip them of ‘ordinary residence’, and render them vulnerable to Form 7 deletions.
This two-step exclusion—first eviction, then erasure from rolls—subverts Article 326’s universal suffrage and corrodes constitutional morality, weaponising urban planning as an electoral tool.
Scalia’s warning haunts me today. When development authorities, electoral bodies, and executive converge, the line between governance and manipulation collapses. What remains is not democracy, but dictatorship in disguise. In the name of town planning or urban development, bulldozers are clearing not just homes, but the very foundations of constitutional morality and universal suffrage.