Overview
- A division bench of the Allahabad High Court issued a split decision on Monday over whether authorities can be barred from demolishing the house of an accused for two years from the date of an FIR, and the difference has been sent to the Chief Justice for placement before a third judge or a larger bench.
- Both judges agreed that using municipal law to demolish a home as punishment violates due process and that selective post‑FIR demolitions indicate a retributive motive that courts must check.
- Justice Atul Sreedharan proposed specific new safeguards that would ordinarily bar demolition for two years after an FIR, require a one‑year notice for dwellings occupied three years or more, allow waivers only for ‘compelling urgency’, and mandate disciplinary action against officials be completed within six months.
- Justice Siddharth Nandan dissented from imposing fixed moratoria or a year‑long notice rule, saying such directions would improperly suspend statutory powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act and risk judicial overreach and misuse by filing frivolous FIRs.
- The case builds on a 2024–25 Supreme Court ruling that demolitions cannot be used as punishment, and the High Court reference will determine whether extra, time‑bound protections beyond those Supreme Court safeguards can be imposed statewide, with direct consequences for residents facing demolition notices and for official accountability.