D Allahabad High Court Tuesday observed that punitive demolition of the structure continued Uttar Pradesh Despite the Supreme Court’s November 2024 ruling that “bulldozer justice” is impermissible under the law.
Bulldozers are being driven in Bareilly. (ANI/File Photo)The court wanted to know whether or not Supreme Court November 2024 guidelines are being followed in the state.
Also Read | The Supreme Court Collegium has approved 5 retired judges for ad-hoc roles in the Allahabad High CourtGranting interim relief to Fahimuddin and two others from Hamirpur, a division bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharthandan questioned whether the state had the power to demolish the residence of an accused or whether it had a duty to protect the rights of citizens.
The bench observed that destruction immediately after an offense may constitute a perverse exercise of executive discretion.
The court also noted that even a “reasonable apprehension” of destruction is reason enough for citizens to go to court. The matter will be heard next on February 9. The case pertains to Bharua Sumerpur area of Hamirpur district, where a case has been registered against an Afan under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Conversion Act. The mob reportedly surrounded the house after the case was registered.
More Read
The third petitioner, Jaibun Nisha, said that the Indian lodge registered in his name was sealed by the authorities, while an oil mill owned by the second petitioner, Moinuddin, was sealed on February 11, 2025, on the orders of the District Magistrate. The petitioners, father, mother and son, expressed apprehension that bulldozer action might be taken against their property.
Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate General Anup Trivedi raised a preliminary objection, calling the application premature. He submitted that only notices have been issued to the petitioners and they are yet to file their reply. The state assured the court that no demolition would take place without following due process of law and giving the petitioners due opportunity to be heard.
The High Court observed that it had come across a number of cases where demolition notices were issued immediately after an offence. It reiterated that the Supreme Court had clearly held that demolition cannot be used as a punishment, and the power to impose punishment rests only with the judiciary and not the executive.
In its interim order, the court directed the police to ensure the security of the petitioners and ensure their access to their properties. Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue/Urban Development), District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Station House Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and Municipal Executive Officer have been made defendants in the case.
