'Bulldozer Justice' Satisfies Society's 'Blood Lust': Allahabad HC Judge Calls for 2-Year Embargo on Demolition After FIR

Observing that "bulldozer justice" is used to satisfy the "perceived blood lust" of society fuelled by electronic and social media, Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court has proposed a series of additional judicial safeguards against punitive demolitions, including a two-year embargo on demolishing the house of a person accused of an offence after registration of an FIR.

In a separate opinion delivered in a split verdict, Justice Sreedharan said that despite the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, authorities continue to demolish homes "with impunity", merely replacing the label of "criminals" with that of "land mafia" or "illegal encroachers".

"This action by the State is largely to satiate the perceived blood lust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice over the electronic media, social media and messaging platforms…", said the judge.

The observations came in a writ petition filed by a Hamirpur family, which alleged that soon after an FIR was registered against the petitioners' relative under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, the Information Technology Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, authorities initiated proceedings against their residential house and commercial properties. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner no.1 was also arraigned as an accused.

The petitioners contended that while they were not initially named in the FIR, notices were issued concerning their residence, their sawmill and "Indian Lodge" were sealed, and they apprehended imminent demolition of their properties in violation of the Supreme Court's directions against punitive demolitions. The State, however, denied any imminent demolition and maintained that any action would be taken strictly in accordance with law.

Holding that courts must respond to the continued phenomenon of punitive demolitions, Justice Sreedharan said the executive was often exercising municipal powers not to enforce planning laws but to punish an accused and his family.

Coining what he described as a new constitutional concept of "Retributive Exercise of Executive Discretion," the judge termed it the "vilest specie" of colourable exercise of executive power.

According to him, when municipal laws are invoked to demolish the house of an accused soon after registration of a criminal case, the real object frequently ceases to be enforcement of planning laws and becomes punishment of the accused and his family without judicial determination of guilt.

"The State is not acting with the avowed aims" of municipal laws but "to punish the accused and his entire family", he observed.

Justice Sreedharan also remarked that the State proceeds on the assumption that society "suffers from collective schadenfreude" and would applaud "vigilante style summary justice" delivered through bulldozers even before the criminal justice system determines guilt.

Emphasising that the right to shelter is an integral facet of Article 21, the judge drew extensively from Olga Tellis, Chameli Singh and subsequent Supreme Court decisions to underline that demolition of a dwelling often extinguishes not merely property rights but also livelihood and dignity.

Against this backdrop, Justice Sreedharan proposed that no dwelling belonging to a person accused of an offence should ordinarily be demolished for two years from the registration of the FIR, reasoning that immediate public anger generated by an alleged offence usually subsides with time and the possibility of executive action being influenced by public sentiment correspondingly diminishes.

He further proposed that occupants of allegedly illegal dwellings who have resided there for three years or more should ordinarily receive one year's prior intimation before demolition proceedings are initiated, except where compelling public necessity demands immediate action.

The judge also held that authorities should not selectively proceed against one allegedly illegal construction while ignoring similar violations nearby. Further, he directed that whenever action is initiated against an unauthorised construction, simultaneous disciplinary and corruption proceedings should also be commenced against officials whose connivance enabled such construction.

Applying these principles, Justice Sreedharan quashed the demolition proceedings against the petitioners' residence and Indian Lodge and held that no fresh demolition proceedings should ordinarily be initiated against them for two years from the registration of the FIR unless the State establishes a genuine public purpose requiring immediate removal.

However, these directions do not presently represent the law declared by the Allahabad High Court. Justice Siddharth Nandan delivered a separate opinion disagreeing with the proposed additional safeguards, resulting in a split verdict that will now be placed before 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