On the afternoon of February 8, around 3:30 PM, municipal authorities arrived at Banbhoolpura's Company Bagh locality in Haldwani with bulldozers. They refused to show any legal papers directing the demolition of the Madrasa and the Mosque, wasting no time in bringing them down.

At the time, Haldwani Mayor Pankaj Upadhyay stated that the Mariyam Mosque and the Abdul Razzaq Zakariya Madrasa in the town were illegally constructed. However, he and his officials have so far failed to produce any court order directing the demolition.

Despite the official assertion of encroachment on government property, many locals pointed out that the area where the Mosque and Madrasa stood had been classified as a ‘category A’ malin basti (slum) in accordance with the Malin Basti Act 2016, ratified by the Uttarakhand Urban Development Department on December 21, 2016.

This classification raises inquiries regarding the legality of the demolition, particularly concerning the absence of adequate rehabilitation measures. According to a report in Scroll.in, Haldwani Mayor has stated that the Mosque and the Madarsa were on government land, and the corporation had issued a demolition notice to Abdul Malik, the caretaker of the Madarsa and the Mosque, on January 30.

Challenging the municipal body’s directive, Safia Malik, wife of Abdul Malik and the second caretaker of the Madarsa and the Mosque, moved the Uttarakhand High Court with her claim that the land on which the Mosque and the Madrasa were built had been leased out in 1937 and sold to her family in 1994. She also pointed out that a petition seeking renewal of the lease has been pending before the district administration since 2007.

Despite the absence of court orders for demolition, the authorities proceeded to demolish the Mosque and the Madrasa. This action sparked violence between residents and law enforcement agencies. Police bullets resulted in the deaths of six innocent Muslims and left over 100 individuals injured, including police officers, members of the press, and media personnel. A first information report (FIR) was filed against 5,000 individuals.

The police brutality on local residents was stark as the locals attempted to resist the anti-encroachment operation. The police exhibited a complete disregard for human rights, including towards Muslim women.
The authorities implemented brutal and ruthless measures such as shoot-on-sight orders, curfews, internet shutdowns, school closures, and bans on gatherings.

Following the demolition crackdown by law enforcement officials, reports emerged of many locals being severely beaten in an effort to establish normalcy. This continued for days, with police conducting raids on Muslim homes and subjecting individuals to brutal assaults indiscriminately.

In the aftermath of the incident, reports surfaced detailing allegations of assault and harassment by police officials. In the subsequent days, the police conducted mass arrests of over 100 individuals, including Abdul Mallik, the custodian of the Haldwani Madarsa and Mosque. Many arrests were reportedly based on vague video evidence indicating mere presence in the area. Among those detained were six women, including a 65-year-old and a breastfeeding mother, accused of "inciting" the crowd.

A CPI(M) delegation led by Brinda Karat compiled a report documenting administrative bias and brutality against Muslim residents by the administration. The report highlighted instances where police officials forcefully entered approximately 50 homes, assaulting women and children, vandalizing property, and causing serious injuries to some women.

On February 7, 2024, a plea challenging the legality of the anti-encroachment drive was filed in the Uttarakhand High Court.

The court promptly issued a notice to the state government, requesting its response within six weeks. Senior advocate Salman Khurshid, representing Abdul Malik, argued before the court that proper legal procedures were not followed during the demolition.

Chief Minister of Uttarakhand Pushkar Singh Dhami had argued that the demolition of the Madrasa and Mosque was carried out under an anti-encroachment drive in accordance with court directions. However, a copy of the order published in Scroll.in indicated that Justice Pankaj Purohit's bench had merely noted the presence of the parties and scheduled the matter for February 14. There was no specific court order directing the demolition operation. Despite this, the administration proceeded with the demolition hastily, without waiting for the next hearing.

The high court refrained from immediately adjudicating on the matter and instead called for a counter-affidavit from the government.