Balancing Law and Humanity: The Imam Bari Displacement
By Farishta Maqbool and Hira Zia
When the homes at Imam Bari were demolished and families displaced, one important question emerged from the aftermath: why did it take the state decades to act on its own decision, and who bears the cost of that delay?
On April 15, 2026, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) launched large-scale demolition operations in the Imam Bari area of Islamabad. The operation removed 3,820 structures, reclaimed 712 acres of land valued at approximately Rs 1 trillion, and displaced around 25,000 people, leading to clashes between residents and law enforcement.
A Settlement With Deep Roots
Imam Bari is a 350-year-old shrine built in honour of Sufi saint Hazrat Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi, known as Bari Imam (1617–1705). The shrine originally occupied 8 kanals. Over generations, families built homes, opened shops, and raised children there, expanding the settlement to over 2,000 kanals. Some residents trace their presence to before Pakistan’s independence.
The government’s position is legally grounded: the land was officially acquired by the state through land awards between 1961 and 1967, as confirmed by Minister Talal Chaudhry in the Senate. Residents received notices, and some signed affidavits acknowledging they held no ownership rights.
The Question of Delayed Enforcement
However, a significant concern remains. If the land was legally acquired in the 1960s, the government’s decision to allow the settlement to expand for over fifty years raises questions about institutional accountability. The original landowners were compensated decades ago. The residents displaced in 2026 are largely their descendants; people born and raised there, with no direct role in the initial encroachment. The burden of the state’s delayed enforcement has fallen disproportionately on them.
The method of enforcement has also drawn scrutiny. Reports of tear gas and pellet fire during the operation prompted the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) to cite the Supreme Court’s 2015 stay order against summary evictions and call for an immediate halt, invoking the constitutional right to housing. Displaced residents filed a court petition arguing that no one should be rendered homeless without alternative accommodation being arranged first.
A Recurring Challenge
Pakistan is not alone in facing this tension. In Mumbai’s Dharavi, evicted families were promised permanent apartments but received only short-term rent assistance. In Nairobi’s Kibos, 3,500 Nubian community members were removed by armed police, with one child killed when a bulldozer demolished a home. In each case, decades of delayed enforcement preceded a rapid and poorly managed resolution.
Finding a More Balanced Path
There is a legitimate case for the state to reclaim public land. What is less clear is whether the process, as carried out, adequately accounted for the circumstances of long-term residents who built lives there in the absence of state action.
When enforcement is delayed for generations, the legal and moral questions become harder to separate. The original owners were compensated. The displaced residents were not. A more measured approach, one that acknowledges both the state’s legal rights and its responsibility toward affected communities, would include meaningful compensation and alternative housing before demolitions begin, not after.
The rule of law requires not just legal authority, but procedural fairness. Both matter.