Bulldozer justice/ Demolition of properties by the executive: India

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. Additional information may please be sent as messages to the Facebook community, Indpaedia.com. All information used will be gratefully acknowledged in your name.

Verdicts of the higher courts

Allahabad HC: 2026

Rajesh Kumar Pandey, TNN, July 22, 2026: The Times of India

Prayagraj : An Allahabad HC division bench has delivered a split verdict on whether additional judicial safeguards are needed to prevent punitive demolition of properties linked to accused persons.


Hearing a plea by a petitioner from Hamirpur, Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan wrote separate orders Monday. While the two judges unanimously held that demolishing homes to punish an accused was illegal and a retributive abuse of power, they differed on whether the state could be barred from demolishing the house of an accused for two years from the date of registration of an FIR.


While Justice Sreedharan held that an accused’s house should not be demolished for two years, Justice Nandan said no such blanket protection could be granted. The bench referred the matter to the Allahabad high court Chief Justice for a decision by a third judge.


Starting his order with a couplet from poet Bashir Badr, ‘ Log toot jaate hain ek ghar banane mein, tum taras nahin khaate bastiyan jalaane mein (People are broken just making a house, while you feel no remorse setting ablaze entire settlements)’, Justice Sreedharan said: “This action by the State is largely to satiate the perceived bloodlust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice over the electronic media, social media and messaging platforms... Rushing to demolish the dwelling place of a person accused of an offence under the garb of the same being violative of municipal laws is impermissible...” 
Justice Nandan, on the other hand, said no fixed time period could be prescribed as “it would result in keeping the operation of an enactment in abeyance for the said period”.


The first issue referred to the Chief Justice was whether, in the exercise of powers under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution, a general direction could be issued restraining the state — for a period of two years or otherwise — from taking any action under UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, subject to certain exceptions. The other was whether a direction could be issued to the authorities to give a “notice of intent” one year prior to initiating such proceedings under municipal laws. 


Justice Sreedharan said the court had witnessed several cases in which demolition notices immediately after the registration of an FIR, following which demolition was carried out under the ostensible fulfilment of statutory requirements. The judge said such demolitions had continued unabated notwithstanding the law laid down by Supreme Court. 


“In case notices are issued for the violation of construction norms, the same shall be valid only if simultaneous proceedings are also initiated against the erring officers,” the judge said. He also said state action must not be directed against only one individual while ignoring similar violations in the vicinity.