India News : A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has delivered a split verdict on the issue of so-called “bulldozer justice” involving the demolition of properties linked to criminal accused. While Justice Atul Sreedharan held that an accused person’s house should not be demolished for two years from the date of registration of an FIR, Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with the view.
In light of the difference of opinion, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for assignment to a third judge.
The case arises from an FIR registered at Sumerpur Police Station in Hamirpur district under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act.
Justice Atul Sreedharan’s View
In his separate judgment delivered on Monday, Justice Sreedharan observed that demolishing the house of an accused under the guise of enforcing municipal laws immediately after the registration of an FIR is unacceptable. He described such action as a form of retaliatory executive action.
He held that no demolition proceedings should be initiated against an accused person’s house for a period of two years from the date of the FIR.
Justice Siddharth Nandan’s Dissent
Justice Siddharth Nandan took a different view, stating that it must ordinarily be presumed that the government will act in accordance with the law and follow the principles of natural justice.
He said that anyone aggrieved by arbitrary action always has the remedy of approaching the High Court. According to him, courts cannot prescribe a fixed moratorium on statutory action, as doing so would effectively suspend the operation of the law for a specified period.
Constitutional Questions Referred
The Bench has referred key legal questions to a third judge, including:
- Whether the High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a general direction restraining authorities from taking action under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, for a period of two years, subject to limited exceptions.
- Whether authorities can be directed to issue a notice of intention one year in advance before initiating proceedings under municipal laws.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Faimuddin and two of his family members. They alleged that soon after an FIR was lodged against one of their relatives under the POCSO Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, a mob, allegedly acting in connivance with the police, targeted their house.
Faimuddin was later named as an accused in the same case. Apprehending demolition of their property, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking protection.
The Uttar Pradesh government, however, argued that the petition was premature, as no final action had yet been taken and the petitioners had not responded to the notices issued to them.
Earlier Observations
In another matter, Justice Sreedharan had observed that the court had come across several cases where demolition notices were issued and houses were razed shortly after the registration of FIRs.
He noted that such demolitions continued despite the Supreme Court’s guidelines governing such actions.
Justice Siddharth Nandan, however, observed that while unauthorized constructions have increased with rapid urbanisation and population growth, illegal structures cannot be legitimised. He also called for greater accountability in dealing with such cases.
Earlier this year, in February, the Allahabad High Court had also criticised the Uttar Pradesh government over the continued demolition of properties linked to accused persons despite the Supreme Court’s directions on the issue.
