PRAYAGRAJ: Making a stern observation that “punitive demolitions” continued in UP despite the Supreme Court’s Nov 2024 ruling that ‘bulldozer justice’ is unacceptable under the rule of law, the Allahabad high court questioned the govt whether demolishing a structure immediately after the commission of an offence is a “colourable exercise” of power by the state.A division bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan said the court has come across multiple cases in which a demolition notice was issued to the occupants immediately after they committed an offence, and after the ostensible fulfilment of statutory requirement, the dwelling places were demolished. The court made the observations on Jan 21 while hearing a writ petition.
HC poses 5 questions on bulldozer demolitionsThe plea was filed by Faimuddeen and others, who said their relative Aafan Khan had been booked under various sections of BNS, Pocso Act, IT Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. The petitioners alleged that although they were not co-accused in the case, they were targeted by police. They raised a “reasonable apprehension” that their properties in Hamirpur, including a house, a lodge and a saw mill, could be razed, with the two commercial establishments already sealed. The petitioners sought the HC’s intervention to prevent demolition.The govt raised a preliminary objection that the petition is premature, and also gave an oral assurance to the court that no demolition would take place without adhering to the procedure established by law and without affording the petitioners a due opportunity to present their case before the authorities concerned.However, noting that such demolitions have continued in the state, the HC deemed it appropriate to address the issue. Bearing in mind the “overarching” nature of the case spanning the right of the state to demolish a structure and the rights of its occupants under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty), the high court framed five questions of law for the parties:Is there non-compliance of the SC’s Nov 2024 judgment with specific reference to paragraphs 85 and 86 of that order (which stated that if a house has to be taken away, then the authority must be satisfied that this is the only option available)?Does the authority to demolish justify the act of razing a structure, or is there a duty on the anvil of the state, not to demolish a dwelling place in the absence of public need/purpose?Are steps taken to demolish a structure immediately following the commission of an offence a colourable exercise of executive discretion?How can HC balance the conflicting interests between the statutory authority of the state to demolish a structure and the fundamental right of the average citizen under Articles 21 and 14, to prevent it? Can “reasonable apprehension” of demolition be a cause of action for a citizen to approach this court, and if ‘yes’, what is the bare minimum for this court to hold the existence of such “reasonable apprehension”?The matter will now be heard on Feb 9.
