'Satiating Bloodlust' Of Society: Allahabad High Court's Justice Atul Sreedharan Slams 'Bulldozer Actions' To Punish Accused
Making strong observations regarding the UP Government's recent "bulldozer actions", Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court on Monday said that the State is demolishing the houses of persons accused of an offence "to satiate the perceived blood lust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice".
"The State is certain that the society suffers from collective schadenfreude and shall applaud the State for dispensing vigilante style summary justice, without adhering to the procedure established by law and secures pleasure from the misfortune of the other person suffering loss", Justice Sreedharan remarked as he stressed that in such a situation, it is for the Constitution Courts to evolve a jurisprudence that is Constitutionally and legally valid.
He highlighted that despite the judgments of the Supreme Court, the demolitions continue with impunity "as though these judgments do not exist", or the State is certain that the defiance towards the law laid down by the highest Court of the land “shall not visit them with any adverse consequences”.
The observations were made in a 51-page opinion by Justice Sreedharan in a split verdict in connection with a writ petition where the properties of a Hamirpur family were targeted by authorities shortly after their relative was booked under the BNS, IT Act, POCSO Act, and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
While the Division Bench, also comprising Justice Siddharth Nandan, unanimously held that demolishing homes to punish an accused is an illegal and retributive abuse of power, the judges delivered a split verdict on whether the State can be barred from taking any action to demolish the house of an accused for a period of two years from the date of registration of an FIR.
Justice Sreedharan opened his order with a couplet by Urdu poet Bashir Badr: "लोग टूट जातेएक घर बनानेमें तुम तरस नहीं खातेबस्तियां जलाने में" (People face ruination in just making a home, and you feel no remorse setting ablaze entire settlements) to underscore the human dimension of shelter.
Elaborating on the human cost involved, he said that a house is not merely a property but the embodiment of a family's hopes, dignity, and security, and taking it away abruptly consigns them to the "deepest abyss of despair".
Importantly, Justice Sreedharan carved out a new legal jurisprudence, terming the immediate demolition of an accused's dwelling place as a "Retributive Exercise of Executive Discretion" and identified it as the 'vilest' species of the genus “Colourable Exercise of Executive Discretion”.
He observed that where the State uses the municipal laws to punish an accused for an offence by demolishing his house, it constitutes a "Retributive Exercise of Executive Discretion" and an act "most viciously malicious in law" which ought to be prevented by the Courts from taking place or compensation in favour of the affected can be ordered.
Justice Sreedharan also referred to a stark socio-economic divide in the society as he noted that residents of unauthorized colonies are the “les misérables” of society who, due to poverty and unemployment, are forced to settle in structures that are suddenly marked for demolition decades later.
Contrastingly, he clarified: "This is not to say that the rich in India live in houses and gated communities that are fully legitimate, but they remain largely untouchable on account of their influence through wealth and/or bureaucratic and political patronage and the ubiquitous and all-pervasive culture of corruption that has been normalised and institutionalised in India".
Stressing that over decades, the average Indian has normalised corruption, Justice Sreedharan referred to recent controversy related to theft of donations at Ayodhya's Ram Temple. He remarked thus:
"the recent controversy relating to the theft of donations at the Ram Temple is the proverbial last straw on the camel's back. Nothing can shame a people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram Temple which epitomises the nadir of the Indian's integrity".
To deal with rising corruption, he went so far as to suggest that the State should consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to include the death penalty for those convicted of corruption.
Senior Advocate SFA Naqvi, along with Advocates Shamsuddin Khan, Syed Ahmed Faizan, and Zaheer Asghar appeared for the petitioner
Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi, C.S.C., Advocates Dileep Kumar Srivastava and Sant Ram Sharma, appeared for the respondents
Case title - Faimuddeen and 2 others v State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 442