Prayagraj: The Supreme Court of India on April 1 strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh government, led by Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, over the demolition of residential properties in Prayagraj. The court emphasised the ‘rule of law’ and asserted that citizens’ homes cannot be demolished in such a manner.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan condemned the Prayagraj Development Authority’s bulldozer action, calling it both “inhuman and illegal.” The court further directed the authorities to compensate the affected homeowners with Rs 10 lakh each within six weeks.
The apex court referred to its November 2024 guidelines on property demolitions across India, issued under Article 142 of the Constitution, to prevent unjustified fears among citizens. It observed that the demolitions were executed in a “high-handed” manner, violating due process.
Defending the Uttar Pradesh government, Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that proper notices were served before demolition and highlighted the challenge of tackling widespread illegal occupations.
The petitioners argued that the state government wrongly assumed that the demolished properties were linked to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in a police encounter in 2023. They alleged that demolition notices were served just 24 hours before action was taken, leaving residents without time to appeal.
Previously, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the plea challenging the demolitions. The affected residents had been issued notices as early as March 6, 2021, regarding certain constructions in Lukerganj, Prayagraj.
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners would be allowed to rebuild their homes at their own cost if they filed appeals within the given timeframe. However, if their appeals were rejected, they would have to demolish the structures themselves.
Emphasizing the fundamental right to shelter, the court reiterated that demolishing residential structures without proper legal procedure was unacceptable. “This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, due process of law,” the bench remarked.
