‘Houses will have to be built, Article 21 is also a thing’, UP government reprimanded for bulldozer action in Prayagraj

The Supreme Court today (March 06) took cognizance of the demolition of people’s houses in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh without following the legal process. The court has strongly reprimanded the officials.

The court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor and three others in Prayagraj. A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotishwar Singh strongly disagreed and said that such action sets a shocking and wrong example. Justice Oka said, “There is also something called Article 21.”

Justice Oka also pointed to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, which sets the procedure to be followed before demolition.

The state will have to rebuild with its own money: Court

Justice Oka sharply criticized the state and said that the court will now order the state to rebuild the demolished structures. Justice Oka said, “Now we order you to rebuild at your own expense, this is the only way to do it.

What did the petitioner say in court?

Let us tell you that the petitioners, advocate Zulfiqar Haider, Professor Ali Ahmed, two widows and another person approached the court after the Allahabad High Court dismissed their petition against the demolition.

They alleged that the authorities issued notices to demolish their houses late on Saturday night and demolished their houses the next day, giving them no chance to challenge the action. They have also argued that they were legitimate lessees of the land and had applied to convert their lease rights into freehold property.

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the state has wrongly linked their land to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was murdered in 2023.

The government gave this argument in defense

Attorney General R Venkataramani defended the state’s action, saying that the petitioners had no time to respond to the notice. There was enough time for this. However, Justice Oka questioned the manner in which the notice was sent. The bench pointed to inconsistencies in the state’s claim on the manner in which the notice was sent.

During this time, the Attorney General demanded that the case be transferred to the High Court. The Attorney General said, “I am not defending the demolition, but let the High Court consider it, but the court rejected this demand.