Allahabad High Court Split on Extra Safeguards Against 'Bulldozer Justice'
Allahabad High Court delivers split verdict on additional bulldozer justice safeguards.
In a significant split verdict on the scope of judicial safeguards against "bulldozer justice", the Allahabad High Court has differed on whether courts can prescribe additional protections beyond those laid down by the Supreme Court for demolition of alleged illegal structures.
Justice Atul Sreedharan held that authorities should ordinarily refrain from demolishing the house of a person accused of an offence for two years from the registration of the FIR and suggested that occupants of long-standing illegal constructions should generally receive one year's prior notice before demolition proceedings begin. However, Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with these directions, holding that such safeguards have no statutory basis and amount to judicial legislation.
The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice for reference to a third judge.
Also Read| Supreme Court Rejects Pleas Alleging Violation Of Its Guidelines On Bulldozer Action
The split verdict came on a writ petition filed by a Hamirpur family, who alleged that their residential house and commercial establishments were targeted after an FIR was registered against their relative under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, the Information Technology Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
The FIR concerns allegations of sexual assault of a minor, circulation of objectionable videos and offences under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. The merits of those allegations were not under consideration in the present writ proceedings.
According to the petitioners, although the accused neither resided with them nor had any ownership interest in their properties, authorities issued notices concerning their residential house, sealed their sawmill and "Indian Lodge", and they apprehended that the structures would be demolished in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.
The State opposed the petition, contending that no demolition of the residential house or lodge had been undertaken and assuring the court that any future action would strictly comply with the procedure established by law. It further maintained that proceedings relating to the sawmill arose independently under the Forest Act after prohibited timber was allegedly recovered from the premises.
Justice Atul Sreedharan's Opinion
Justice Sreedharan used the case to examine what he described as the continuing phenomenon of "bulldozer justice" despite the Supreme Court's landmark ruling against punitive demolitions.
Also Read| Bulldozer justice is unknown to any civilized system, simply unacceptable: SC
Observing that demolitions continue to follow criminal cases under the guise of removing illegal encroachments, he remarked that such actions are often undertaken to satisfy the "perceived blood lust" of society fuelled by electronic media, social media and messaging platforms.
According to the judge, immediate demolition proceedings initiated soon after registration of an FIR frequently acquire the character of a "retributive exercise of executive discretion" rather than a bona fide exercise of municipal powers.
To prevent punitive state action, Justice Sreedharan proposed that authorities should ordinarily not demolish the dwelling of an accused for two years from the date of registration of the FIR. He reasoned that public outrage generated immediately after an alleged offence usually subsides with time, reducing the possibility of executive action being influenced by public sentiment instead of legitimate public purpose.
He further proposed that where an allegedly illegal dwelling has existed for three years or more, authorities should ordinarily give one year's prior intimation before initiating demolition proceedings, except where compelling public urgency requires immediate action.
The judge also held that demolition notices should not be selectively issued against one property while similar violations in the vicinity remain untouched. Additionally, he directed that whenever proceedings are initiated against illegal constructions, authorities should simultaneously initiate disciplinary and corruption proceedings against public officials whose connivance enabled such constructions to come up.
Applying these principles, Justice Sreedharan quashed the demolition proceedings against the petitioners' residence and lodge and directed that no fresh demolition proceedings be initiated for two years, except where removal is demonstrably necessary for a genuine public purpose.
Justice Siddharth Nandan's Dissent
Justice Siddharth Nandan agreed that the Supreme Court's demolition guidelines are binding and adopted those directions, along with the Supreme Court's subsequent directions in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya. He also concurred that arbitrary or selective demolitions cannot be permitted and that proceedings against the petitioners' sawmill under the Forest Act should continue independently.
However, he disagreed with Justice Sreedharan's additional directions imposing a two-year embargo on demolition after registration of an FIR and requiring one year's prior notice before initiating proceedings against long-standing illegal constructions.
According to Justice Nandan, urban planning authorities derive their powers from statutes such as the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, which already prescribes the procedure governing unauthorised constructions. Courts, he held, cannot create timelines or restrictions not contemplated by the statute or by the Supreme Court.
In his view, while courts are duty-bound to ensure faithful implementation of the Supreme Court's bulldozer judgment and protect citizens against arbitrary executive action, they cannot suspend or curtail statutory powers by prescribing additional conditions through judicial directions.
Since the two judges differed on these crucial issues, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice for reference to a third judge.
Case Title: Faimuddeen and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others
Order Date: July 20, 2026
Bench: Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan