LUCKNOW: In an observation regarding the state of executive actions in Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court said that punitive demolitions of structures continued to take place in the State despite the Supreme Court's November 2024 order over 'Bulldozer Justice'.
The HC further questioned the state government as to whether demolishing a structure immediately following the commission of an offence was a ‘colourable exercise of executive discretion.’
A Division Bench, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, observed while hearing a writ petition filed by one Fahimuddeen and others who claimed that their relative Aafan Khan was named in an FIR under various Sections of the BNS, POCSO Act, IT Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
The petitioners alleged that, though they were not named as co-accused in the FIR, they were being targeted by a mob allegedly in collusion with the district police.
Before the court, they raised an apprehension that their properties situated in Hamirpur, including a residential house, a commercial lodge and a saw mill, were marked for destruction by mechanical means by the authorities concerned.
They claimed that the commercial lodge and saw mill had already been sealed by the respondent authorities. Therefore, they sought the intervention of the High Court to prevent the anticipated destruction of the properties.
While hearing the writ petition, the court observed that it had come across various such cases in which the notice for demolition was issued to the occupants immediately following the commission of an offence.
"Thereafter, the dwelling places were demolished after the ostensible fulfilment of statutory requirements", the court noted.
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 Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty), the Court framed a few queries of law for the parties concerned.
While posting the matter for next hearing on February 9, the court asked if there was a non-compliance of the judgement of the Supreme Court's November 2024 with specific reference to paragraphs 85 and 86 of that judgement.
"Did the authority to demolish justify the act of demolishing a structure, or was there a duty on the part of the state not to demolish a dwelling place in the absence of public need/purpose?" the court asked.
The court also asked if the steps were taken to demolish a structure immediately following the commission of an offence.
It also sought to know how the High Court could balance the conflicting interests between the statutory authority of the State to demolish a structure and the fundamental right of the average citizen under Articles 21 and 14, to prevent it.
Finally, the court asked the authorities concerned if "reasonable apprehension" of demolition can be a cause of action for a citizen to approach this Court, and if so, what was the bare minimum for this Court to hold the existence of such "reasonable apprehension."
The state government, however, in response, raised a preliminary objection to the petition, saying it was premature and that the petitioners must respond to the notices issued to them.
In fact, an oral assurance was also given to the High Court that no demolition would take place without adhering to the procedure established by law and without affording the petitioners a due opportunity to place their case before the authorities concerned.
However, noting that such demolitions continued in the state despite the Supreme Court's order, the High Court, in its order dated January 21, deemed it appropriate to address the questions it had framed.
