WWith five-point questions recently, the Allahabad High Court revealed bulldozer justice. Criminal demolitions turn executive discretion into punishment without due process. In a constitutional democracy, coercive state power is expected to follow a predictable sequence: accusation, investigation, sentence, and only then sanctions. Yet in recent years, Uttar Pradesh has witnessed a disturbing administrative trend popularly referred to as ‘bulldozer justice’, where properties associated with people accused of crimes are destroyed soon after incidents of alleged wrongdoing.
BULCourts have been repeatedly called upon to examine whether demolitions carried out immediately after registration of criminal cases conform to constitutional principles. In 2024, the Supreme Court intervened to define the limits of legal action and issue express guidelines against punitive demolitions. However, the recurrence of such practices suggests that the tension between executive discretion and constitutional restraint remains unresolved.
Current episode
The latest instance reached the Allahabad High Court when a family from Hamirpur district sought protection from the imminent demolition of their residence and business premises after registration of charges against a relative. The petitioners themselves were not implicated, yet municipal notices were issued and some properties were sealed shortly after the FIR.
The Division Bench noted that such sequences are becoming increasingly routine. It reaffirmed the basic principle that punishment is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the judiciary and cannot be taken over by administrative authorities. To review the legality of the suit, the court asked five substantive questions, including whether such demolitions violated Supreme Court directions and violated the guarantees of equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
A careful assessment of the legal framework is necessary. Acts such as the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, and the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 empower authorities to remove unauthorized structures. However, these powers are limited. Demolition is permitted only through a structured process; the authorities must first identify the violation, issue a written notice detailing the reasons, provide a reasonable opportunity to respond, consider objections, and then issue a reasoned order.
Most laws also allow for appeals and regularization options, indicating that demolition is intended as a regulatory measure of last resort rather than a tool for immediate action. No less important is the limited purpose of these laws: municipal statutes regulate buildings and land use; they do not determine criminal culpability. Registration of an FIR does not render the structure illegal or justify expedited enforcement.
Court instructions
The Supreme Court addressed this particular concern in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures (2024 INSC 866) and categorically held that a property cannot be demolished merely because its owner is accused of a crime. The court emphasized that criminal guilt must be proven only by a court decision. Municipal powers cannot be transformed into parallel instruments of punishment; allowing such use would undermine both the presumption of innocence and the integrity of the justice system.
State authorities often argue that demolitions are independent acts under municipal law. While the existence of such a power is not disputed, constitutional analysis looks beyond form to substance.
Notices issued immediately after the FIR, targeting only those associated with the accused and executed without delay, strongly suggest punitive intent.
Administrative law describes this as a colorful exercise of power – the use of a legal instrument to achieve an impermissible goal. These practices violate the separation of powers by allowing the executive to impose consequences that only the courts can authorize. Deprivation of home or livelihood based on mere suspicion is incompatible with constitutional governance.
Bigger consequences
Questions from the Allahabad High Court highlight lingering issues: Can the mere fear of demolition violate fundamental rights? What standards should preventive judicial intervention be guided by? What mechanisms ensure accountability when municipal powers are misused?
These are not abstract concerns. Demolitions cause immediate and often irreversible damage to families who may ultimately be found innocent. In addition to personal hardship, they erode public confidence in impartial governance.
A necessary balance
No city can function without compliance with building regulations. However, this power must remain strictly within constitutional limits. Selective or exemplary demolitions transform regulatory authority into punitive measures and violate administrative neutrality.
The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property other than by procedure established by law, notice, hearing, reasoned decision and judicial supervision. When demolition precedes decision, this sequence is reversed and due process is thwarted.
Bulldozers have a legitimate role in running the city, not assigning blame. Criminal demolitions, however labeled, are legally unsustainable. Maintaining this distinction is essential to maintaining the rule of law.
GS Bajpai is the Vice-Chancellor of the National Law University. The contributions of Vibhuti Sharma, Academic Fellow, are acknowledged. Views are personal
Published – 26 Feb 2026 22:25 IST
