The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government over a 2021 bulldozer action in Prayagraj, suggesting that the demolished houses could be rebuilt at the state’s expense. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh questioned the legality of the demolitions, stating that the houses were brought down in a hasty manner without giving residents adequate time for legal recourse.
Justice Oka remarked, “Are you aware that Article 21 (Right to Life) exists in the Constitution?” He further said that one possible resolution to the case could be directing the government to reconstruct the demolished houses at its own cost.
Houses Razed Within Hours of Notice, Petitioners Claim
The petitioners told the court that they were served notices on the night of 6 March 2021, but the date on the notice was 1 March. Within hours, on 7 March, bulldozers were brought in, demolishing five houses, including those of Professor Ali Ahmad and advocate Zulfikar Haider. The petitioners argued that they were leaseholders of the land and that the demolition was linked to alleged mafia and political connections with former MP Atiq Ahmad.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the petition, accepting the state government’s stance that the land in question was nazul land (government-owned land meant for public use). The state argued that the lease, which had been in place since 1906, expired in 1996. The petitioners had applied to convert their leasehold into freehold status, but their requests were rejected in 2015 and 2019. The administration contended that the demolitions were part of the removal of illegal encroachments.
SC Cites Own Ruling on Bulldozer Action
The two-judge bench referred to a recent Supreme Court ruling on bulldozer actions, which held that demolitions should only proceed after providing adequate time and legal recourse to the affected individuals. Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the UP government, suggested referring the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. However, the Supreme Court refused and scheduled the next hearing for 21 March.
