‘Punitive demolitions’ continue in UP despite SC order: Allahabad High Court flags non-compliance

The court said “demolition of structures is violative of the separation of powers as the authority to punish vests with the judiciary”.

The bench added, “Therefore, bearing in mind the overarching nature of the case spanning the right of the state to demolish a structure and the rights of its occupants under Article 14 and 21, and how these demolitions continue in the State despite the judgement of the Supreme Court mentioned in the preceding paragraph that punitive demolitions of structures shall be prohibited, this Court feels it essential to frame some questions of law having a direct bearing in the present case.”

Framing “five questions” related to demolitions, the bench said the court expected the parties to address the following:

1) Is there non-compliance of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (Writ C No. 295 of 2022? (2025) 5 SCC, with specific reference to paragraphs 85 and 86 of that judgement?;

2) Does the authority to demolish, justify the act of demolishing a structure or, is there a duty on the anvil of parens patriae upon the State, not to demolish a dwelling place in the absence of public need/purpose?;

3) “…Would steps taken in the direction of demolishing a structure immediately following the commission of an offence, be a colourable exercise of executive discretion?…”

4) “…How is the High Court to balance the conflicting interests between the statutory authority of the State to demolish a structure and the fundamental right of the average citizen under article 21 and 14, to prevent it?…”

5) “…Can reasonable apprehension of demolition be a cause of action for a citizen to approach this Court and if ‘yes’, what is the bare minimum for this Court to hold the existence of such “reasonable apprehension?…”

The petitioners, Faimuddin and his parents, had sought the High Court’s intervention to prevent the likely demolition of their properties, including their house, a lodge and a sawmill.

The family said a relative of theirs was booked on charges of rape and provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act, in January.

They alleged that a mob in collusion with police targeted their house soon after the incident.

Their counsel submitted that even as they were not co-accused in the FIR, the district authorities issued a notice immediately after registration of the FIR. Their lodge and the sawmill (the licence of which has lapsed and renewal is pending) have been sealed, they added.

The court said the petitioners shared an apprehension that their properties were marked for demolition by “mechanical means” (a euphemism for bulldozer action).

According to the HC order, the government maintained that the petition was premature as “no cause of action had arisen” and the house and the lodge had not been sealed till date and the sawmill was sealed as prohibited wood were recovered from the premises.

Meanwhile, an assurance was given “orally” by Additional Advocate General Anoop Trivedi that no demolition would take place without adhering to the procedure “established by law” and without giving a due opportunity to the petitioners to place their case before the authorities concerned.

Listing the next hearing on February 9, the court said, “The police shall provide protection to the life, limbs and property of the petitioners so that they may have free ingress and egress to their properties.”