However, both judges concurred that arbitrary demolitions violate the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers. Future demolitions must strictly comply with due process, and violations are liable to invite contempt proceedings.
“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. In removing dwelling places found non-compliant with the municipal laws, the Benthamite utilitarian approach of summarily evicting the few for the larger good of the many would be a square peg in a round hole in the Indian context,” the July 20 order read.
Justices Siddharth Nandan and Atul Sreedharan observed that houses are not constructed overnight and that authorities entrusted with ensuring compliance with building laws often “deliberately” turn a blind eye.
‘Ram Temple theft controversy, corruption normalised’
Referring to the recent controversy relating to the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple, the high court described it as the “proverbial last straw” that reflected a broader decline in “public integrity”.
“Nothing can shame a people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram Temple which epitomises the nadir of the Indian’s integrity,” the court stated.
Story continues below this ad
The bench further observed that the collective absence of integrity affects every institution, including municipal and other public authorities, whose alleged dishonesty or inaction enables individuals to construct buildings that do not comply with municipal laws.
The court added that, over decades, the average Indian has “normalised” corruption, to the extent that it is no longer considered wrong so long as one is not caught.
“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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to include the death penalty for those convicted of corruption,” the Allahabad High Court stated.
The court also referred to Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, noting that India ranked 91st among 182 countries, and observed that even this does not “shame us.”
Story continues below this ad
Justice Atul Sreedharan
Justice Siddharth Nandan
Two-Year Bar on Demolition After an FIR
Proposed that, ordinarily, no demolition proceedings should be initiated against a person's dwelling for two years from the date of FIR registration, subject to limited exceptions
Disagreed, holding that courts cannot suspend the operation of statutory provisions for a fixed period through a general direction
One-Year 'Notice of Intent' Before Demolition Proceedings
Directed that where a structure existed for more than three years, authorities should ordinarily issue a one-year prior notice of intent before initiating proceedings
Disagreed, observing that such a direction could not be issued generally under Article 226
Scope of High Court's Powers Under Article 226
Held that the High Court could issue these broad safeguards in exercise of its writ jurisdiction
Held that Article 226 powers must be exercised with judicial restraint and cannot impose additional procedural requirements not contemplated by law
Express InfoGenIE
FIR, sealed properties, demolition fears
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged against a relative of the petitioners under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. Following the FIR, the petitioners alleged that, although they neither resided with the accused nor had any connection with the commercial establishments linked to him, the authorities were threatening to demolish their residential house and had already sealed the ‘Indian Lodge’ and the ‘Saw Mill’.
‘Constitution inorganic being’
Highlighting that the law has traditionally prioritised the larger public good over individual rights in cases such as road widening or public development, the court observed that demolitions of dwelling places for such public purposes have often been upheld by courts where they are carried out in accordance with law.
Pointing out that the Constitution is an “inorganic being” with its life infused by the aspirations of the people it serves, the court added that 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.
Observing that houses are not constructed overnight, the high court said that authorities entrusted with ensuring compliance with building laws often “deliberately” turn a blind eye either because of political or bureaucratic patronage enjoyed by the builder or due to dishonesty, allowing such structures to come up in the first place.
Story continues below this ad
Adding that the state was just as complicit through its corrupt agents (the bureaucracy) in the illegal occupation of the land by the proposed evictee, it held that the person whose dwelling place is to be demolished, and who has been in occupation of the same for decades, but never had a clear right to the land on which the house stood, also must be given a reasonable time, with the assistance of the state to resettle him elsewhere.
Pointing out that in the context of the present case, the chapter on directive principles of state policy is the “conscience” governing state action, the court added, “Part IV of the Constitution is not a garnish on the surface of a dish to make it presentable, but an important ingredient that makes the dish itself edible and palatable.”
The court emphasised that the state must strive to justify its existence by establishing a welfare state, run in accordance with the rule of law, guided by the Preamble to secure justice for its citizens.
Need to adapt in dynamic time
Referring to the words of the eminent jurist and constitutionalist V Sudhish Pai, the high court added that in the present era, there are “rampant violations” of building norms and it is also a well-known fact that most of the buildings, including at times built by the development authority itself, is not complying with the norms.
Story continues below this ad
The court pointed out that one-sided action to correct the measures, by way of the “retributive exercise” of the executive discretion, has also to be dealt with; or else this Court will be failing in its constitutional obligation itself.
“The court must adapt to the changing times and understand the dynamics of the times and accordingly mould the law in order to fit the times without doing violence to the just scriptum,” it added.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Shamsuddin Khan argued that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens and the sealing of their residential house, sawmill and the lodge, without any notice and in disregard of the procedural formalities prescribed under the law, renders the state action unconstitutional and violative of the petitioners’ rights.
Representing the state, chief standing counsel Dileep Kumar Srivastava submitted that the state has only issued notice to the petitioners and that they have the right to place their case before the authority concerned, and if after hearing the petitioners, any order of demolition was passed against the properties of the petitioners, they could have then approached this court.
Justices Siddharth Nandan and Atul Sreedharan observed that houses are not constructed overnight and that authorities entrusted with ensuring compliance with building laws often “deliberately” turn a blind eye.