Punitive demolitions persist in UP despite Supreme Court ban on bulldozer action: Allahabad High Court

Prayagraj: Taking a stern note of alleged demolition drives in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court has observed that punitive demolition of structures continues to take place in the state despite the Supreme Court's November 2024 ruling that “bulldozer justice” is simply unacceptable under the rule of law.

A two-judge bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddhartha Nandan also asked the state government whether demolishing a structure immediately after the commission of an offence was a colourable exercise of executive discretion.

The bench observed that it came across various cases in which the notice for demolition was issued to the occupants immediately after the commission of an offence.

Thereafter, the dwelling places were demolished after the ostensible fulfilment of statutory requirements, it said.

Therefore, bearing in mind the “overarching” nature of the case, spanning the right of the state to demolish a structure and the rights of its occupants under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the court fixed February 9 as the next date for hearing.

In the order passed on January 21, the court observed, "Preliminary submissions have been made by both sides. The case of the petitioners appears to be that though the petitioners are not co-accused in the FIR, the respondents issued a notice to Petitioner No. 2, who owns the residential house in which they dwell, immediately after the commission of the offence and registration of the FIR." The court said the respondents have sealed a commercial property registered in the name of Petitioner No. 3 as ‘Indian Lodge’, and a saw mill, the licence of which was renewed in the name of Petitioner No. 2 on February 11, 2025, and its renewal is pending.

The petitioners have expressed an apprehension that their properties have been marked for “destruction by mechanical means” (a euphemism for bulldozer action).

“The obvious primary prayer is judicial intervention to prevent the anticipated destruction of the properties,” the court said.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Faimuddeen and others, who claimed that their relative, Aafan Khan, was booked under various sections of the BNS, POCSO Act, IT Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.

The petitioners claimed that though they were not co-accused in the FIR, they were targeted by a mob allegedly in collusion with the police.

They raised an apprehension before the bench that their properties in Hamirpur, including a house, a commercial lodge and a saw mill, were marked for “destruction by mechanical means” by the authorities.

Claiming that the respondent authorities have already sealed the commercial lodge and the saw mill, the petitioners sought the high court’s intervention to prevent the anticipated destruction of the properties.

The Uttar Pradesh government, however, termed the petition “premature” and said the petitioners must respond to the notices issued to them.

An oral assurance has also been given to the high court that no demolition would take place without adhering to the procedure established by law and without affording the petitioners a due opportunity to place their case before the authorities concerned.

However, noting that such demolitions have continued in the state despite the Supreme Court's order, the bench deemed it appropriate to address the questions it framed in the order passed on January 21.

In November 2024, a bench headed by then-Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had observed that justice through bulldozers was unknown to any civilised system of jurisprudence, and said the state must follow due process of law before taking action to remove illegal encroachments or unlawfully constructed structures.

“Bulldozer justice is simply unacceptable under the rule of law. If it were to be permitted, the constitutional recognition of the right to property under Article 300A would be reduced to a dead letter,” the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, had said.