World
India
The Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government on Monday over the demolition of houses in Prayagraj, stating that the actions had “shocked its conscience.” The court raised serious concerns over the manner in which the demolitions were carried out without allowing proper time for appeal.
Court Questions the Legality of the Demolitions
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed strong disapproval of the state government’s approach in handling the demolitions. The justices highlighted that homes were bulldozed within just 24 hours of serving notices, leaving residents without a chance to challenge the decision legally.
“It shocks our conscience how the residential premises were demolished in a high-handed manner. The manner in which the whole process has been conducted is shocking. Courts cannot tolerate such process. If we tolerate in one case, it will continue,” the bench remarked.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the rule of law must be upheld, and authorities cannot act arbitrarily when dealing with people’s homes and properties.
Reconstruction of Homes on Certain Conditions
In a major relief to the affected residents, the Supreme Court stated that it would allow the reconstruction of the demolished homes, but at the cost of the petitioners. This decision was made in light of their commitment to filing appeals before the appellate authority within the specified time. The court clarified that the petitioners must not claim ownership rights over the land or create third-party interests while their appeals are under consideration.
Additionally, the court ruled that if the appeals were dismissed, the petitioners would have to demolish the houses at their own expense.
The matter was adjourned to enable the petitioners to file their undertakings regarding these conditions before proceeding further.
State Government Defends Its Actions
Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, defended the state’s actions, claiming that due legal process was followed in serving the demolition notices. He also pointed out that illegal encroachments had become widespread, making it difficult for the state government to manage unauthorized possession of land.
However, the Supreme Court was not satisfied with this justification, emphasizing that even if encroachments existed, demolitions should not have been conducted in such a hurried and forceful manner.
Past Criticism of Demolitions in Uttar Pradesh
This is not the first time that the Uttar Pradesh government has faced criticism for demolitions. Previously, the apex court had rebuked the state for demolishing homes in Prayagraj without adhering to proper legal procedures. The court had remarked that such actions send a “shocking and wrong signal” to the public.
The petitioners in the case argued that the state government wrongly identified their properties as belonging to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in 2023 in a police encounter. Their counsel asserted that the demolitions were carried out without verifying the rightful ownership of the land.
Legal Battle of the Petitioners
The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, and others whose houses were demolished by the authorities. These individuals had previously challenged the demolition orders in the Allahabad High Court, which had rejected their plea.
According to the petitioners, they had received notices regarding certain constructions on Nazul Plot No. 19, Lukerganj, under the jurisdiction of the Khuldabad police station in Prayagraj district, on March 6, 2021. They claimed that they were not given sufficient time to respond or challenge the demolition orders.
The Supreme Court’s latest observations indicate that it is taking a firm stance against arbitrary demolitions carried out by state authorities. The next step in the case will involve the petitioners filing their undertakings as per the court’s directive. Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh government is expected to provide further justifications for its actions in the next hearing.
