The Allahabad high court on Monday delivered a split verdict on whether courts can issue directions to curb “bulldozer justice”, with one judge proposing a two-year bar on demolition of an accused person’s house after registration of an FIR, while the other held that such a blanket direction cannot be issued. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice for consideration by a third judge.
Justice Atul Sreedharan observed that the State was demolishing the houses of persons accused of offences “to satiate the perceived blood lust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice”.
“The State is certain that the society suffers from collective schadenfreude and shall applaud the State for dispensing vigilante-style summary justice, without adhering to the procedure established by law and secures pleasure from the misfortune of the other person suffering loss,” Justice Sreedharan said, adding that it is for the constitutional courts to evolve a jurisprudence that is constitutionally and legally valid.
The observations came in a writ petition filed by members of a Hamirpur family, who alleged that their properties were marked for demolition shortly after one of their relatives was booked under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.
Justice Sreedharan held that rushing to demolish the dwelling of an accused under the guise of municipal law violations amounted to a retributive exercise of executive power. “No action may be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}Justice Sreedharan held that rushing to demolish the dwelling of an accused under the guise of municipal law violations amounted to a retributive exercise of executive power. “No action may be taken to demolish his house for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR,” he said.
{{/usCountry}}Justice Siddharth Nandan, however, disagreed, observing that there is a presumption that the government acts in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice, and that any aggrieved person is free to approach the high court for relief. He held that such a general direction restraining authorities from taking action under municipal laws could not be issued.
In view of the split verdict, the division bench referred two legal questions to the Chief Justice for consideration by a third judge. The first is whether the high court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can restrain authorities from initiating demolition proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, for a specified period, subject to certain exceptions. The second is whether authorities should be directed to issue a “notice of intent” one year before initiating proceedings under municipal laws for alleged statutory violations.
Earlier this year, in February, the high court had criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for continuing punitive demolitions linked to criminal cases despite the Supreme Court’s directions against such actions.
The present petition was filed by Faimuddeen and two other family members, who alleged that a mob, in collusion with the police, targeted their house after one of their relatives was booked in a case under the Pocso Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act at Sumerpur police station in Hamirpur district. Faimuddeen was later also named as an accused in the case. Apprehending demolition of their house, the family approached the high court seeking protection.
Senior advocate SFA Naqvi, assisted by advocate Syed Ahmed Faizan, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the authorities were threatening to demolish the family’s house solely because one of their relatives had been implicated in the criminal case, even though the property itself had no connection with the alleged offence.
In his separate opinion, Justice Sreedharan also observed that the court had witnessed several instances where demolition notices were issued immediately after registration of an FIR and demolitions were carried out under the ostensible compliance of statutory procedures.
‘Ram temple donation theft shows nadir of India’s integrity’
Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad high court on Monday said the alleged theft of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya reflected the “nadir of the Indian’s integrity” and suggested introducing the death penalty for corruption offences.
The observations were made in his 51-page opinion in the split verdict on “bulldozer justice” and demolitions of properties linked to accused persons.
“The recent controversy relating to the theft of donations at the Ram Temple is the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. Nothing can shame a people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram Temple which epitomises the nadir of the Indian’s integrity,” Justice Sreedharan said.
He added that corruption had become normalised and said the State should consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to provide for the death penalty for those convicted of corruption.