Allahabad High Court has raised questions on bulldozer action after any crime in the state. Asked- Are the Supreme Court's November 2024 guidelines not being followed in this regard? While giving interim relief to Fahimuddin of Hamirpur and two others, the division bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharthanandan has raised the question whether the state has the right to demolish the residence of a criminal or should it protect the rights of the citizens?
The court said, is demolition immediately after the crime a perverted exercise of executive discretion? And only “reasonable apprehension” of destruction can be grounds for people to approach court. The next hearing in the case will be held on February 9. Brief facts related to the case are that a case has been registered in Sumerpur police station against Afan, a relative of the petitioners, resident of Ward 11 Thokchand in Bharua Sumerpur, under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and Section 3/5(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Illegal Religious Conversion Prohibition Act.
The mob had surrounded his house. Indian Lodge, registered in the name of the third petitioner, Jaibun Nisha, has been sealed by the defendants. The saw mill in the name of petitioner number two Moinuddin has been sealed on 11 February 2025 by the order of the District Magistrate. The petitioners are son, father and mother. Accused Afan is Fahimuddin's cousin and nephew of the other two.
The petitioners have expressed apprehension that bulldozers may be used on their properties. On behalf of the state government, Additional Advocate General Anup Trivedi raised preliminary objection to the petition saying that it is pre-mature. Only a notice has been issued to the petitioners, to which they have to respond. The accommodation and lodge have not been sealed. Also hidden is the fact that the saw mill was sealed due to banned items (Neem and Dhak).
An assurance was given by the state government that no demolition will be carried out without following the legal procedure and without giving a proper opportunity to the petitioners to present their case. The court said that this court has seen many such cases where immediately after the crime, a notice of demolition is issued to the place of residence of the criminal and then the demolition is carried out after following the procedures of law.
The Supreme Court has already made it clear that demolition action cannot be taken as punishment, the government cannot give a decision, it is the power of the judiciary. This Court has felt that it is necessary to answer some important questions in order to strike a balance between the demolition power of the State and the rights of the citizens under Articles 14 and 21.
In the interim order, the court has directed the police for the security of the petitioners and said that their access to the properties will be ensured. Additional Principal Secretary (Revenue/Urban Development) of the State Government, District Magistrate, SP SDM, Police Station Head, DFO Forest Department and Executive Officer Municipal Council have been made defendants in the case.
