Nothing Can Shame People Unfazed By Ram Temple Donation Theft, It's Nadir Of Indian's Integrity : Justice Atul Sreedharan
Sparsh Upadhyay
21 July 2026 3:37 PM IST
Justice Sreedharan suggested death penalty as a punishment for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Delivering strong observations regarding the UP Government's recent "bulldozer actions", Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court simultaneously criticized the systemic corruption plaguing Indian institutions, noting that the recent theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya represents the "nadir" of the "Indian's integrity".
He added that an average Indian has normalised corruption and no longer considers it wrong unless caught. He further remarked that even the fact that India ranks 91 among 182 nations in the Transparency International 2025 report, "does not shame us".
In this regard, referring to the recent Ram Mandir Donation Theft row, Justice Sreedharan said:
"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".
Importantly, expressing deep concerns over how deeply corruption has been normalized in society, the Judge went as far as suggesting that the State should consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to introduce the death penalty for corruption convicts.
The scathing observations were made in Justice Sreedharan's 51-page opinion in a split verdict dealing with the issue of "bulldozer justice" and the demolition of homes belonging to accused persons under the guise of municipal code violations.
Setting the context for these demolitions, he remarked 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".
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”.
Read more about his remarks on the State's Bulldozer action here : 'Satiating Bloodlust' Of Society: Allahabad High Court's Justice Atul Sreedharan Slams 'Bulldozer Actions' To Punish Accused
Furthermore, while examining how unauthorized structures come into existence in the first place, Justice Sreedharan noted that no dwelling place comes up overnight.
"The authorities who have the duty to ensure that such structures do not come up, close their eyes deliberately on account of political or bureaucratic support that the builder has or out of dishonesty", he remarked.
The Court further observed that the creation of non-compliant houses is facilitated by dishonest officials who take bribes from builders and leave the ultimate buyer to suffer the enforcement of the law and face sudden eviction decades later.
In this context, Justice Sreedharan categorically remarked that the State is particeps criminis (an accomplice) for actively assisting violators through connivance and by providing sovereign amenities like water and electricity to these structures.
He also stated that this "collective absence of integrity" affects every institution, including development authorities.
Importantly, Justice Sreedharan warned that rampant corruption in the country would lead to the illicit concentration of wealth in the hands of a few “widening the chasm between the haves and the have-nots” and laying down the “script for civil unrest in days to come”.
In view of this, Justice Sreedharan urged the State to take extreme legislative measures if it genuinely wishes to clean up the system.
"If the State is serious, actually serious, about curtailing corruption and retrieving India from the abject morass of dishonesty and complete lack of integrity, it should consider amending the 46 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to include the death penalty for those convicted of corruption", he opined.
To tackle the immediate issue of demolishing the houses of a person accused of an offence, Justice Sreedharan directed that it would be impermissible for the state to take any action for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR; however, Justice Siddharth Nandan differed on this specific direction.
Read more about the difference of opinion between the judges here: Split Verdict On 'Bulldozer Justice': Allahabad High Court Judges Differ On 2-Year Ban On Razing Houses Of Accused Post-FIR
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
