HC flags continued demolitions in UP despite SC ruling on bulldozer justice
text_fields
The administrative executive power being exerted in Uttar Pradesh to demolish properties soon after an offence is registered against individuals has come under scrutiny from the Allahabad High Court, which observed that the punitive action of bulldozing properties has continued in the State without adherence to due process despite a clear Supreme Court ruling restraining such executive excesses, a practice the Court noted as having been particularly rampant in BJP-ruled states.
The observations were made while the High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the family members of a person who had been named in a first information report but who himself was not the petitioner, and whose relatives alleged that their properties had been identified for demolition solely on account of the criminal case registered against him.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, expressed concern over whether the immediate initiation of demolition proceedings following the registration of an offence amounted to a colourable exercise of executive discretion rather than a bona fide enforcement of municipal or statutory law.
The petitioners, Faimuddeen and others, informed the Court that their relative, Aafan Khan, had been named in an FIR under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, the Information Technology Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, and although they themselves were not accused, they alleged that they were being targeted by a mob allegedly acting in collusion with the police.
They stated that their properties in Hamirpur, including a residential house, a commercial lodge and a saw mill, had been marked for demolition, while the lodge and saw mill had already been sealed by the authorities, prompting them to approach the Court apprehending imminent destruction.
While the State Government raised a preliminary objection, contending that the petition was premature and that the petitioners ought to respond to the notices issued to them, it also offered an oral assurance that no demolition would take place without following due process and granting an opportunity of hearing.
However, the Bench noted that demolitions had continued in the State despite the Supreme Court’s November 2024 judgment on so-called “bulldozer justice,” and therefore deemed it necessary to examine broader constitutional questions arising from the case.
The High Court framed a series of questions touching upon the State’s authority to demolish structures and the fundamental rights of occupants under Articles 14 and 21, including whether mere statutory power to demolish justifies its exercise, whether the State’s parens patriae obligation requires restraint in the absence of a legitimate public purpose, and whether a reasonable apprehension of demolition is sufficient ground for a citizen to seek judicial protection.
In November 2024, the Supreme Court had issued pan-India guidelines, invoking Article 142, directing that properties must not be demolished merely because their owners or occupants are accused of a crime, and mandating strict procedural safeguards such as detailed notices, personal hearings, minimum waiting periods and documentation, after holding that punitive demolitions without due process are unconstitutional.
Despite these directions, the continuation of bulldozer drives has drawn repeated judicial censure, with recent acquittals, including that of Samajwadi Party leader Moid Khan in a POCSO case after his properties were demolished prior to trial, Maktoob media reported.