In a ruling, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay ₹10 lakh in compensation each to the six people whose houses were illegally demolished at Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The demolitions, carried out in 2021, were based on an incorrect premise that the land belonged to slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed. The court has issued a stern reprimand to the Uttar Pradesh government for acting in an “inhuman,” “shocking” manner that was in violation of the right to shelter and due process.
Background of the Demolitions
The demolitions took place in March of 2021 when the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) demolished several residential buildings. The authorities claimed that these properties were associated with Atiq Ahmed, a most wanted and notorious personality in the politics of Uttar Pradesh, who also went on to be killed. However, it was later revealed that this claim was utterly unfounded, and the demolitions were carried out without legal embargo, recourse, and due process.
Violation of Due Process
The egregious violation of due process was another thing pointed out by the Supreme Court in its judgment while discussing the PDA. Notice was slapped on the buildings without delivery or sending by registered post, as laid down by law. This meant the residents were denied a reasonable opportunity to challenge the demolition orders, which are, in fact, their rights, under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
Right to Shelter and Article 21
The court elucidated how the right to shelter is an inalienable part of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Justices referred to the demolitions as chilling examples of how state authorities can curse their citizens with such gross violations to an extent, where their very sustenance becomes an uphill battle.
Reaction from the Supreme Court
The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed extreme discontent with the manner in which the demolitions were carried out, stating that the actions “shock our conscience” while reiterating the need for due process in any demolition proceeding concerning property.
Compensation and Future Directions
Given the financial incapability of the affected persons, a compensation of ₹10 lakh was ordered by the court to be paid to each of the six petitioners by the PDA. This was seen as a way to provide accountability against the action of the authorities and also to ensure that these kinds of illegal demolitions do not continue in the future.
The Court also ordered the PDA to strictly follow the guidelines laid down in the judgment given by them in November 2024, which were meant to curb arbitrary demolitions across the country. This ruling was a watershed in the battle against “bulldozer justice,” a term used when properties are demolished without due process, mostly of those accused of crimes or their families.
Impact and Implications
The judgment greatly impacts the bulldozer justice practice in Uttar Pradesh and beyond. It sends a very strong message to state authorities not to resort to arbitrary demolitions and to respect the right to shelter and due process at all times.
The ruling further highlighted the plight of the common people too often caught between political and legal tussles. The case of retired Urdu professor Ali Ahmed Fatmi, who lost his house to demolition, is an example of the human cost of such ventures. Professor Fatmi was entirely in order and had paid every last one of his taxes. He had no connection— whatsoever—with Atiq Ahmed. Yet he suffered economically and socially due to the arbitrary actions of the state.
Conclusion
The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in this case is a tool to preserve the rule of law and uphold the fundamental rights in India. It presupposes the importance of due process and the right to shelter, pleading for no one to be deprived of their rights without the same due process. The judgment here serves as another reminder of the judiciary’s role in preserving the rights of citizens against arbitrary action of the state while the country examines issues of justice and accountability.
About Author
Syeda Ayesha is a passionate 3rd year BBA LLB student at Sultan-Ul-Uloom College of Law in Hyderabad, with a special interest in criminal law and family law. She has built her academic journey on a solid foundation of legal principles, progressing from basic to advanced levels, and is eager to apply this knowledge in practice. Determined to gain practical experience, she is committed to learning more about the law. Ayesha is excited about the opportunity to work in a dynamic legal environment, which she sees as a valuable avenue for both personal and professional growth.