Allahabad HC questions UP government over 'bulldozer justice', demands clarity on implementation of SC guidelines

THe Allahabad heights margaret court on tues observed that punitory demolition of structures continues to occupy place in Uttar Pradesh despite the Supreme Court's November 2024 ruling that "bulldozer justice" is unacceptable under the law.The court asked whether the Supreme Court's November 2024 directions are being followed in the state.ALSO READ | Supreme Court Collegium approves 5 retired judges for ad-hoc role in Allahabad high courtGranting interim relief to Faheemuddin and two others from Hamirpur, a Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sridharan and Justice Siddharthanandan questioned whether the state has the authority to demolish the residence of an accused, or whether its duty lies in protecting citizens' rights.The Bench observed that carrying out demolition immediately after an offence may constitute a distorted exercise of executive discretion.The court further noted that even a "reasonable apprehension" of demolition is sufficient ground for citizens to approach the court. The matter will be heard next on February 9. The case pertains to the Bharua Sumerpur area of Hamirpur district, where a case has been registered against one Afan under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and Sections 3 and 5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. Following the case's registration, a crowd reportedly surrounded the house.The third petitioner, Zaibun Nisha, stated that the Indian Lodge registered in her name was sealed by the authorities, while an oil mill owned by the second petitioner, Moinuddin, was sealed on February 11, 2025, on the orders of the District Magistrate. The petitioners, father, mother and son, expressed apprehension that bulldozer action could be taken against their properties.Appearing for the state, Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi raised a preliminary objection, calling the petition premature. He submitted that only notices had been issued to the petitioners, and they were yet to file their replies. The state assured the court that no demolition would be carried out without following due legal process and without giving the petitioners a proper opportunity to be heard.The High Court observed that it has seen several cases in which demolition notices are issued immediately after an offence. It reiterated that the Supreme Court has clearly held that demolition cannot be used as a form of punishment, and that the power to impose punishment lies solely with the judiciary, not the executive.In its interim order, the court directed the police to ensure the petitioners' safety and guarantee their access to their properties. The Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue/Urban Development), District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Station House Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council have been made respondents in the case.