A division bench of the Allahabad High Court on Monday delivered a split verdict on whether additional measures are needed to stop punitive demolitions of properties belonging to persons accused of crimes.

Justice Atul Sreedharan favoured a two-year bar on such demolitions after a first information report is filed. However, Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with the suggestion, due to which the matter was referred to the chief justice for a decision by a third judge.

There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for the demolition of property as a punitive measure. However, the practice has become commonplace in Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states.

In November 2024, the Supreme Court held as illegal the practice of demolishing properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. It said that processes must be followed before removing allegedly illegal encroachments.

However, the Allahabad High Court had in February remarked that demolitions continued to be used as punishment despite the Supreme Court order.

On Monday, Sreedharan and Nandan agreed that the arbitrary bulldozing of homes violates the rule of law and said that demolitions must comply with due process.

Sreedharan held that “rushing to demolish the dwelling place of a person accused of an offence” under the garb of municipal violations is impermissible and amounts to “a retributive exercise of executive discretion”.

“The Constitution also stands by the rights of the ‘little man’ of this country who may have no prominence in society on account of his minimal financial status and not being a person of means,” the judge remarked.

He added that the collective absence of integrity “affects every institution, including the municipal authorities”, which allow unauthorised construction to come up.

On the other hand, Nandan said in his judgement that there is a presumption that the government will act in accordance with law and adhere to the principles of natural justice. He said that in cases of alleged punitive demolitions, it would be open for aggrieved persons to approach the High Court.

“…In my humble opinion no fixed time period can be put, for as a matter of fact, it would result in keeping the operation of an enactment in abeyance, for the said period,” Nandan said. He added that a two-year freeze could lead to cases where “frivolous prosecution” may be deliberately launched so that those accused of violating municipal laws get protection for that period.

In February, a bench comprising Sreedharan and Nandan had observed that demolitions carried out soon after the registration of an offence may constitute a distorted exercise of executive discretion. It noted that it had seen several instances where demolition notices had been issued in such circumstances.

Written by Neerad Pandharipande. Edited by Sneha.

Also read: Why does ‘bulldozer justice’ continue in spite of the Supreme Court ruling it illegal in November?