Allahabad High Court Split on Two-Year Moratorium on Demolitions After FIR

The Allahabad High Court has delivered a split verdict on a petition challenging the threatened demolition of a residential home following the registration of an FIR in Uttar Pradesh. Justice Atul Sreedharan proposed a two-year period during which no demolition action should ordinarily be taken after an FIR is lodged, while Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed, resulting in a split on that issue.

Justice Atul Sreedharan quoted late Urdu poet Bashir Badr's lines—'People face ruination in just making a home and you feel no remorse setting ablaze entire settlements'—and observed, 'In a meaningful democracy, the right of the individual must be protected, if the need arises, from the might of the state.'

Both judges agreed that arbitrary demolitions must conform to the law, holding that punitive demolitions violate the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers. They directed that future demolitions of dwelling houses must strictly comply with due process, with violations liable to invite contempt proceedings.

The July 20 order stated: 'The Constitution also stands by the rights of the “little man” of this country who may have no prominence in society on account of his minimal financial status... In removing dwelling places found non-compliant with the municipal laws, the Benthamite utilitarian approach of summarily evicting the few for the larger good of the many would be a square peg in a round hole in the Indian context.'

The bench observed that houses are not built overnight and that authorities often 'deliberately' turn a blind eye to building law violations. Referring to the recent controversy over alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple, the court described it as the 'proverbial last straw' reflecting a broader decline in 'public integrity.' It stated, 'Nothing can shame a people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram Temple which epitomises the nadir of the Indian’s integrity.'

The court noted that collective absence of integrity affects all institutions, including municipal authorities, whose alleged dishonesty enables non-compliant construction. It added that the average Indian has 'normalised' corruption to the extent it is no longer considered wrong if undetected. The court even suggested amending the Prevention of Corruption Act to include the death penalty for corruption convictions, and referenced Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index where India ranked 91st out of 182 countries.

The case arose from an FIR against a relative of the petitioners under the POCSO Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. The petitioners alleged that despite having no connection with the accused, authorities threatened to demolish their residential house and had already sealed it.