Allahabad HC delivers split verdict on safeguards against "bulldozer justice" demolitions
The Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on safeguards against "bulldozer justice," a term for punitive demolition of properties linked to accused persons. Justice Atul Sreedharan criticized the practice as designed to "satiate the perceived blood lust" and proposed safeguards: no demolition for two years after an FIR if linked to an accused, and a year's advance notice for unauthorized houses occupied for three years or more. Justice Siddharth Nandan agreed that the state cannot demolish to punish but differed on creating additional safeguards beyond the Supreme Court's existing directions. The matter will now be referred to a third bench.
Key Points
- The Allahabad High Court gave a split verdict on the need for additional safeguards against punitive demolitions.
- Justice Atul Sreedharan criticized "bulldozer justice" as a punitive measure, not for enforcing planning laws.
- He proposed safeguards including a two-year moratorium on demolitions linked to an FIR and a one-year notice for long-occupied unauthorized houses.
- Justice Siddharth Nandan agreed that demolitions cannot be used as punishment but disagreed on creating new safeguards beyond existing SC directives.
- The case will now be referred to a third bench for a conclusive decision.
Exam Facts
- Justices involved: Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan.
- Supreme Court's 2024 ruling on "bulldozer justice" mentioned.
- Proposed moratorium: two years after FIR.
- Proposed notice period: one year for houses occupied for three years or more.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.