Allahabad HC Split Verdict: Judges Differ on Bulldozer Action Safeguards Beyond Supreme Court Directives
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on Monday in a case concerning the potential demolition of homes and properties of three petitioners from Hamirpur district, Uttar Pradesh. The two judges agreed that any demolition must follow Supreme Court guidelines but differed on whether the High Court could impose additional safeguards. As a result of the disagreement, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice for assignment to a third judge.
The petitioners, residents of Hamirpur, alleged that their residential house and commercial establishments—including a lodge and a saw mill—were sealed and threatened with demolition after an FIR was registered against a relative under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. They argued that they were not accused in the criminal case and that the accused had no ownership interest in their properties, and that the demolition would destroy their livelihoods.
The state government contended that the proposed demolition was unrelated to the FIR and was based on the structures being built on irrigation department land without an approved building plan.
Justice Atul Sreedharan, one of the judges, observed that demolitions of homes have become an instrument of executive action, often driven by what he called the “perceived bloodlust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice.” He emphasized that the executive cannot declare a person guilty—only a court can—and therefore cannot demolish property as punishment without due process. He also noted that corruption in municipal authorities allows illegal constructions to go unchecked, and that such corruption widens inequality and risks civil unrest.
Justice Siddharth Nandan, the other judge, agreed that the Supreme Court’s directions on demolitions must be followed but held that the High Court should not impose additional safeguards beyond those already laid down. His reasoning was not detailed further in the available account.
The case highlights ongoing legal debates over the use of demolitions as a tool against accused persons, especially in the context of property rights and due process. The matter now awaits a deciding opinion from a third judge.
