SC Refuses To Stop Demolition Of Lawyers' Chambers On Lucknow Road, Says "All Demolitions Have To Take Place"

The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.

"You indulge in unauthorised construction and then you say you have a right to continue? No"

Justice Vikram Nath was unsparing in his questioning, asking where the construction was situated and why it stood on the main road. "You indulge in unauthorised construction and then say you are elected President of the Association or a member of its governing body, and therefore have a right to continue? No. All demolitions have to take place," he told counsel.

Justice Nath added that he had seen the situation himself, having served as a Senior Judge in the region for two years, and that the constructions obstructed the roads with traffic "completely obstructed."

Plea for alternate space, mediation rejected

Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala, appearing for the petitioner, suggested that alternate space may be allotted to the affected advocates and proposed referring the matter to mediation.

Justice Nath was unmoved: "Mediation with lawyers?"

Counsel pointed out that the matter had originally begun as a criminal writ petition and was later converted into a Public Interest Litigation. Justice Nath responded, "And rightly so. There is no other way to deal with this."

He went on to question who would protect court premises from encroachments, recalling an instance during a visit to a district court where a lawyer had converted the District Judge's designated parking space into his own chamber.

The Supreme Court dismissed the plea.

What the petition sought

The Bar Association had approached the Supreme Court through AoR Mohd. Fuzail Khan against the Allahabad High Court's Lucknow Bench order dated 4 August 2026, passed in a PIL that originated as a criminal writ petition (Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 713 of 2026) seeking quashing of an FIR, before being converted into a PIL by an order dated 7 April 2026. That order had directed the Lucknow Nagar Nigam to serve eviction notices on 72 persons, mostly practicing advocates; occupying chambers on public land, and to demolish them if they failed to vacate, with a compliance report due by 10 September 2026.

The petitioner stated that over 100 chambers had already been demolished pursuant to earlier orders dated 7 April and 25 May 2026, while the remaining 72 chambers named in the order were still standing. It further alleged that on 19 August 2026, the Nagar Nigam pasted a demolition notice and public advertisement on the same day; fixing the demolition drive for 29 August 2026, without issuing the fresh notices directed by the High Court, which the petitioner argued betrayed "the pre-decided view of the concerned authorities."

Petitioner's core arguments

The Bar Association contended that the issue of encroachment on public land was "entirely an issue of a civil nature," and that the High Court, while exercising its criminal roster, ought to have left the matter to statutory remedies available under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972, the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

It further argued that the affected advocates, who were neither parties to the original criminal writ petition nor the converted PIL, and had received no prior notice; were being denied the principles of natural justice, with chambers being razed despite a pending impleadment application before the High Court seeking to be heard as necessary parties.

Reliefs sought, and refused

The petitioner had sought a stay on the 4 August 2026 order and a restraint on the Nagar Nigam from executing the demolition until the SLP's disposal. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea.