Allahabad High Court Questions ‘Bulldozer Justice’ in UP, Flags Continued Demolitions Despite Supreme Court Ruling
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the ongoing practice of punitive demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, observing that such actions appear to be continuing despite the clear directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in its November 2024 ruling against what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice.”
A division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan expressed serious concern over instances where demolition notices were issued almost immediately after an offence was registered, followed swiftly by the destruction of homes and properties under the guise of completing legal formalities.
The court questioned whether demolishing structures right after alleged crimes amounts to a misuse of executive power, describing it as potentially a “colourable exercise of discretion.”
Court Raises Key Constitutional Questions
Highlighting the broader constitutional implications, the bench said the issue involves a delicate balance between the state’s authority to remove illegal constructions and citizens’ fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty.
To address this conflict, the High Court framed five major legal questions for consideration:
- Whether there has been non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s November 2024 judgment, particularly the safeguards mentioned in paragraphs 85 and 86.
- Whether having the authority to demolish automatically justifies demolition, or whether the state has a duty to refrain unless there is a genuine public purpose.
- Whether demolitions carried out immediately after an alleged offence are a misuse of executive discretion.
- How the High Court should balance the state’s statutory powers with citizens’ fundamental rights.
- Whether a “reasonable apprehension” of demolition is enough for a citizen to approach the court, and what minimum standard should apply to establish such fear.
The matter has now been scheduled for further hearing on February 9.
Case That Triggered the Court’s Observations
The court was hearing a writ petition filed by Faimuddeen and others, who claimed that their relative, Aafan Khan, was named in an FIR under multiple laws, including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), POCSO Act, IT Act, and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
The petitioners argued that although they were not accused in the FIR, they were being targeted by a mob allegedly acting in collusion with the police.
They told the court they feared imminent demolition of their properties in Hamirpur district — including a residential house, a commercial lodge, and a saw mill. According to them, the lodge and saw mill had already been sealed by authorities, raising strong apprehension that all properties would soon be razed.
Seeking protection, they approached the High Court to stop what they described as an unlawful and retaliatory demolition drive.
State’s Stand and Court’s Response
The Uttar Pradesh government objected to the petition, calling it premature and arguing that the petitioners should first respond to official notices issued to them.
The state also gave an oral assurance to the court that no demolition would be carried out without following due legal process and giving the affected parties a proper opportunity to be heard.
However, the High Court noted that similar assurances had been made in the past, yet demolitions continued across the state even after the Supreme Court’s intervention.
In view of this pattern, the bench said it was necessary to examine the larger legal and constitutional issues involved rather than treat the matter as an isolated dispute.
