Allahabad HC splits on 'bulldozer justice' issue: So what split the bench

Story so far: The Allahabad High Court decision in a recent case title: Faimuddeen vs State of Uttar Pradesh resulted in a split verdict even as the Bench agreed on the need to curb arbitrary demolitions. However, the two judges, Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan, differed on how far the Supreme Court can go in creating additional safeguards beyond those already laid down by the Supreme Court.

Case

Hamirpur residents Faimuddeen, his son and his wife ended up in court after the Uttar Pradesh police arrested one of their relatives under the POCSO Act, the IT Act and the UP Anti-Conversion Act. Mr Faimuddeen said his own name was not even in the original FIR but was added later. Then came the sealing of the family sawmill and cabin and the inscriptions on their house. To them, it looked like the beginning of a demolition drive, the kind now associated with “bulldozer justice.”

Their argument: it was a collective punishment, plain and simple, violating Articles 14, 19 paragraph 1 letter g), 21 and 300A.

The state disagreed. It said the lodge’s case had its origins in an old encroachment dispute and the sawmill’s issue involved violations of the Forest Act. So both of them have nothing to do with the criminal case at all.

Opinion of Justice Sreedharan

In a detailed 51-page judgment, Justice Atul Sreedharan drew on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, Olga Tellis, Chameli Singh and related cases, holding that the right to shelter cannot be separated from the right to life and livelihood.

Quoting Urdu poet Bashir Badr – “log toot jate ek ghar banane me…tum taras nahi khate bastiyan jalane me” (People are broken, they are just trying to build a home and you feel no remorse when you burn down entire settlements) – and argued that demolitions today are less about the law and more about feeding the public’s “dozers to an electronic media platform and an electronic media diet rather than the basic menu of media”.

He then turned to the state’s contention that the structures were illegal to begin with. His answer: buildings don’t go up overnight. If they exist, it’s usually because the officials who wanted to stop them looked away, “out of political convenience, or worse.”

“Over the decades, the average Indian has normalized corruption. It’s no longer bad if one doesn’t get caught. Even in Transparency International’s 2025 report, India ranks 91 out of 182 nations, but even that doesn’t embarrass us. The recent controversy surrounding the theft of gifts at the Ram Temple is the proverbial last drop of shame on people who can’t stay shame. The theft at the Ram Temple, which embodies the lowest level of Indian integrity,” the court observed.

He warned that this kind of corruption concentrates wealth in fewer hands, deepens inequality and ultimately breeds unrest. He then suggested that to prevent this, the government must consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 to introduce the death penalty for corruption convictions.

He called post-FIR demolitions a “retributive exercise of executive discretion” disguised as routine municipal action and laid down two new rules: no demolitions of an accused person’s dwelling within two years of the FIR unless there is a truly pressing public need; and if the structure has been standing for three years or more, residents will be given a year’s notice before any demolition, again unless necessary.

On that basis, he dropped the demolition proceedings against the family home and lodge and blocked any new lawsuit for two years. The sawmill case, which was separate under forest law, could continue.

Justice Siddharth Nandan was not convinced

In a shorter, 23-page order, Justice Siddharth Nandan agreed to adopt the Supreme Court’s guidelines in the Bulldozer judgment and the Rajendra Kumar Barjatya case, including safeguards against selective action and accountability for erring officials. However, he refused to support guidelines imposing a two-year embargo on demolitions, mandatory annual notices for long-term structures and a blanket cancellation of proceedings against developers.

According to him, these directives actually regulate the legal framework governing spatial planning and unauthorized constructions. Since laws like the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act already prescribe notice periods and procedures, the court could not replace them with judicially created periods. While courts can ensure due process, they cannot enact new substantive requirements.

what now

With two justices split along substantive lines, there is no majority yet. The head judge will now send the disputed points to the third judge. It will not rehear the entire case, but only resolve specific issues on which the panel could not agree.

Published – 23 Jul 2026 11:34 IST