AllahabadHighCourt – High Court Questions Continued Demolition Actions Despite Supreme Court Ruling

AllahabadHighCourt – The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday expressed concern that punitive demolitions of private structures are still being carried out in Uttar Pradesh, even after the Supreme Court’s clear directive in November 2024 that so-called “bulldozer justice” has no place in the legal system.

The court openly questioned whether the state administration is complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling, which held that demolition cannot be used as a substitute for lawful punishment.

Bench Raises Questions on State Authority

Granting interim protection to Faheemuddin and two other residents of Hamirpur district, a Division Bench of Justice Atul Sridharan and Justice Siddharthanandan examined the limits of executive power in such cases. The judges asked whether the state has the authority to demolish the home of an accused person or whether its primary responsibility is to safeguard constitutional rights until guilt is established by a court.

The Bench observed that demolishing properties immediately after the registration of an offence could amount to a misuse of executive discretion. It noted that punishment, if any, must follow due judicial process and cannot be imposed through administrative action.

Apprehension Alone Considered Sufficient

The High Court further clarified that citizens need not wait for actual demolition to take place before seeking legal relief. According to the court, even a reasonable fear that demolition may be carried out is sufficient for affected individuals to approach the judiciary for protection.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on February 9, when the court will review the state’s response and examine whether proper legal safeguards were followed.

Background of the Hamirpur Case

The case arises from events in the Bharua Sumerpur area of Hamirpur district. A criminal case was registered against one Afan under Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. Following the registration of the case, a crowd reportedly gathered outside a residential property linked to the family.

The petitioners before the court include members of the same family. They stated that administrative actions taken after the case was lodged created a serious fear of demolition.

Properties Sealed, Family Voices Concerns

According to the petition, the third petitioner, Zaibun Nisha, said that an Indian Lodge registered in her name was sealed by authorities. In a separate action, an oil mill owned by the second petitioner, Moinuddin, was sealed on February 11, 2025, following orders issued by the District Magistrate.

The petitioners, who are father, mother, and son, told the court that these steps indicated a real possibility of bulldozer action against their remaining properties. They argued that such actions were being taken without a final determination of guilt and in violation of established legal principles.

State Calls Petition Premature

Representing the state government, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi raised a preliminary objection, describing the petition as premature. He submitted that the administration had only issued notices to the petitioners and that no final action had been taken so far.

The state assured the court that no demolition would be carried out without following due legal procedure and without giving the petitioners a fair opportunity to present their case.

Court Reiterates Supreme Court’s Stand

The High Court noted that it has repeatedly encountered cases where demolition notices are issued immediately after an offence is reported. It reiterated that the Supreme Court has made it clear that demolition cannot be used as a punitive measure and that only courts have the authority to impose punishment after due process.

In its interim directions, the court ordered the police to ensure the safety of the petitioners and to guarantee their unhindered access to their properties. Several senior officials, including the Additional Chief Secretary, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, and other administrative officers, have been named as respondents in the case.