BREAKING | Split Verdict On 'Bulldozer Justice': Allahabad High Court Judges Differ On 2-Year Ban On Razing Houses Of Accused Post-FIR

While Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that a 2-year hiatus must be put in place so that the State's urge to "satiate the presumable public anger" immediately following the offence would 'dissipate', Justice Siddharth Nandan strongly dissented from placing a blanket embargo on statutory actions for 2 years.

However, both judges agreed that when the State acts maliciously to target an accused's property under the guise of municipal laws, it amounts to a "retributive exercise of executive discretion".

In his 51-page judgment, Justice Sreedharan added that demolishing a house immediately after an offence is largely 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.

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", identifying it as the 'vilest' species of the Genus “Colourable Exercise of Executive Discretion”.

Taking serious note that demolitions continue with impunity despite the Supreme Court's 2025 guidelines in the "bulldozer case," Justice Sreedharan proposed strict supplementary directions for the State of Uttar Pradesh, which were met with stiff opposition from Justice Nandan:

• 2-Year hiatus (disagreement between judges): No action may be taken to demolish the house of a person accused of an offence for a period of two years from the date of the FIR. Justice Sreedharan noted that this hiatus ensures the action is not driven by public anger immediately following an offence.
  
• 1-Year advance notice (disagreement between judges): For the removal of non-compliant/illegal constructions where the violator has resided for three years or more, the authority must now provide an intimation one year before initiating eviction procedures under municipal law. This gives the occupant a full year to resettle.
  
• Waiver only for 'Compelling Urgency' (disagreement between judges): The one-year prior intimation can only be waived if the State justifies a "compelling urgency" of larger public need.
• Action against corrupt officials (Agreement between the Judges): Both the judges agreed that if demolition notices are issued to citizens for construction violations, simultaneous proceedings inter alia under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, must be initiated against the erring municipal and police officers who allowed the structure to be built. These disciplinary proceedings must be brought to a logical end within 6 months.

'Unwarranted Judicial Activism': Justice Siddharath differs

In his 24-page judgment, Justice Siddharth Nandan entirely disagreed with Justice Sreedharan's directions regarding a two-year hiatus and the one-year advance notice. He termed the directions as acts of "unwarranted judicial activism" that encroach upon the jurisdiction of the legislature.

He observed that placing a fixed 2-year embargo on demolitions would effectively keep the operation of a valid enactment (the UP Urban Planning and Development Act) in abeyance.

He also warned that such blanket protection could lead to the lodging of "frivolous FIRs" by individuals merely seeking to shield their illegal structures from demolition.

Regarding the 1-year advance notice, Justice Nandan observed that the legislature has already prescribed a valid procedure for serving notices under the Municipal Laws, and the Court cannot insert a new 'notice of intent' timeline that does not exist in the statute.

Justice Sreedharan extensively analyzed the intersection of the right to life, livelihood, and shelter, relying on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Olga Tellis. He observed that while illegal constructions cannot be condoned, the State is often particeps criminis (an accomplice) as unauthorized structures are built with the "connivance" of corrupt bureaucrats.

"Where the State uses the municipal laws to punish an accused for an offence by demolishing his house in order to satiate the collective schadenfreude of the people, that the State has taken vengeance on their behalf, the same would be a Retributive Exercise of Executive Discretion and an act most viciously malicious in law," Justice Sreedharan observed.

Notably, both judges agreed that selective targeting betrays a punitive motive. The bench remarked thus: "If the intention of the State is to remove illegal construction, it cannot be restricted only to a single house but to all those houses which are in the vicinity...Selectively demolishing a house belonging to an accused immediately after the registration of the FIR, is downright malicious".

The Court passed these orders while hearing a writ petition filed by Faimuddeen and two others who claimed that their relative, Aafan Khan, was named in an FIR under various sections of the BNS, POCSO Act, IT Act and the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.

The petitioners alleged that, though they were not co-accused in the said FIR, they were targeted by a mob allegedly in collusion with the police.

Before the bench, they raised a reasonable apprehension that their properties in Hamirpur, including a residential house, a commercial lodge, and a saw mill, were marked for destruction by mechanical means by the authorities.

While Justice Sreedharan directed that no demolition proceedings shall be initiated against the residential house and commercial lodge for two years, Justice Nandan disagreed, noting the State's submission that no proceedings were currently pending against the residential house.

Both judges, however, agreed that proceedings against the saw mill under the Forest Act shall continue unaffected.

Due to the split verdict, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice to nominate a third judge or a larger bench to decide on the legality of the 2-year embargo and the 1-year advance notice.

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