Allahabad High Court Delivers Split Verdict on Two-Year Freeze Against Demolition of Houses Linked to Criminal Accused
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a split verdict on a significant constitutional question concerning so-called “bulldozer justice,” with two judges expressing divergent views on whether courts can impose a blanket two-year prohibition on demolishing the houses of persons accused in criminal cases immediately after the registration of an FIR. As the judges differed on the core legal issues, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for assignment to a third judge, whose opinion will determine the final outcome.
The case arose from a petition filed by members of a family who alleged that soon after an FIR was registered against one of their relatives under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, authorities initiated steps to demolish their residential property. The petitioners argued that the demolition was punitive in nature and violated constitutional guarantees of equality, due process and the right to life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Atul Sreedharan held that the State should ordinarily be restrained from demolishing the residence of an accused person for a period of two years from the date of registration of an FIR, except in limited exceptional circumstances. According to his opinion, hurried demolitions under the guise of municipal or planning laws often amount to a retaliatory exercise of executive power rather than a legitimate regulatory action. He observed that a person’s home deserves constitutional protection and that punitive demolitions undermine the rule of law by effectively imposing punishment before guilt is established through a judicial process.
Justice Sreedharan also stressed that the executive cannot use town planning or development laws as a substitute for criminal justice. He reasoned that while illegal constructions may certainly be proceeded against under applicable statutes, such action must not coincide with criminal prosecution in a manner that creates an impression of punishment without trial. In his view, a temporary judicial safeguard would reduce the possibility of arbitrary state action while preserving the State’s power to act in genuine cases involving public safety or other compelling statutory grounds.
Justice Siddharth Nandan, however, disagreed with imposing a universal two-year embargo. He held that the High Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, cannot issue a blanket direction restraining statutory authorities from acting under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, for a fixed period irrespective of the facts of individual cases. According to him, such a direction could unnecessarily hinder the lawful enforcement of municipal and planning regulations and would extend beyond the permissible limits of judicial review.
Despite their disagreement on the proposed moratorium, both judges agreed on an important constitutional principle—that demolitions cannot be carried out as an instrument of punishment merely because an individual has been accused of a crime. They emphasised that any demolition must strictly follow the procedure established by law, comply with statutory notice requirements and conform to the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court against arbitrary or retaliatory demolition drives. Any deviation from these legal requirements would expose authorities to judicial scrutiny and possible contempt proceedings.
Because of the conflicting opinions, the Division Bench has framed key legal questions for consideration by a third judge. These include whether the High Court can issue an in rem direction restraining the State from taking demolition action for a fixed period after registration of an FIR and whether authorities should be required to provide extended advance notice before initiating demolition proceedings under urban development laws. The answers to these questions are expected to shape future jurisprudence on the balance between executive enforcement powers and constitutional protections against arbitrary state action.
The eventual decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for demolition actions across Uttar Pradesh and potentially influence similar litigation elsewhere in the country. The third judge’s opinion could clarify the extent to which constitutional courts may impose systemic safeguards against alleged punitive demolitions while preserving the State’s authority to enforce planning and municipal laws through lawful and non-discriminatory procedures.
