A division bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday saw its two judges adopt divergent views on whether authorities have the right to demolish properties belonging to persons accused of crimes.
While Justice Atul Sreedharan favoured a two-year bar on such demolitions following the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), Justice Siddharth Nandan held that no such provision exists in law. Both judges, however, agreed that arbitrary bulldozing of properties without due process is illegal.
The split verdict, delivered on Monday by Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan, has resulted in the matter being referred to the Chief Justice for consideration by a third judge.
Justice Sreedharan held that demolishing the home of an accused under the guise of enforcing municipal regulations soon after an FIR is lodged amounts to a punitive exercise of executive power. He proposed that authorities should be restrained from taking such action for two years after the registration of a criminal case.
The judge observed that the Constitution safeguards even the “little man” with limited means and warned that the absence of institutional integrity had enabled unauthorised constructions to flourish with the tacit approval of municipal authorities.
Justice Nandan, however, disagreed with imposing a fixed two-year prohibition, reasoning that such a measure would effectively suspend the operation of municipal laws. He also cautioned that unscrupulous individuals could exploit the proposed safeguard by initiating frivolous criminal proceedings to shield illegal constructions from demolition.
According to him, there is a presumption that public authorities act in accordance with law, while those alleging punitive demolitions remain free to seek relief before the High Court.
The ruling comes despite the Supreme Court's November 2024 judgment declaring punitive demolitions illegal and insisting that authorities strictly follow due process before removing alleged encroachments. The Allahabad High Court had earlier observed that such demolitions continued despite the apex court's directions.