Supreme Court Criticizes UP Government’s Demolition Of Homes In Prayagraj

The Supreme Court recently took strong exception to the Uttar Pradesh government’s decision to demolish homes in Prayagraj within 24 hours, without proper legal protocols.

The case involved properties allegedly linked to gangster Atiq Ahmed, which the state deemed illegal encroachments.

However, the Court emphasized that due process must be followed and citizens’ fundamental rights under Article 21 must be protected.

Failure To Follow Legal Procedures

The authorities swiftly carried out the demolition of the properties after issuing notices, but the Court observed that the affected individuals did not have enough time or opportunity to contest the actions.

Lawyer Zulfiqar Haider and Professor Ali Ahmad, along with other petitioners, argued that the authorities violated legal norms by not giving them the chance to appeal or present a defense before demolishing their homes.

Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Kotiswar Singh, who led the bench, expressed disapproval and noted that the authorities did not follow due process.

They stated that the authorities’ actions had breached constitutional guarantees, particularly the right to protection of life and property under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Allowed To Appeal & Rebuild Homes

The Court allowed the petitioners to appeal to the appellate authority, with the opportunity to rebuild their homes if the appeal is successful.

However, the bench made it clear that if the appeal dismissed, the petitioners would bear the cost of any future demolitions.

Additionally, the bench granted the petitioners time to file affidavits detailing the case.

Uttar Pradesh’s Attorney General R Venkataramani defended the state’s actions, stating that controlling illegal encroachments was a significant challenge for the government.

He argued that the authorities followed the proper procedures in issuing notices.

However, the Supreme Court rejected his defense, calling the procedure ‘flawed’ and stressing that the Court had compromised the fairness of the process.

Court Critiques Notice Delivery Method

The Court also questioned the delivery method of the notices, asking why they were hurriedly affixed instead of being sent via courier.

Describing the demolition as an extreme measure that involved ‘atrocities’, the Court expressed concern about the negative message it sent.

In its final ruling, the Supreme Court directed a review of the demolitions, highlighting that the actions violated the rights of the citizens.

This case underscores the importance of following legal procedures and respecting citizens’ rights during government actions.

As the matter progresses, the petitioners have the opportunity to rebuild their homes, with the outcome of their appeals determining whether further legal proceedings will follow.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Directs UP Police To Submit Report On Arrest Without Notification