New Delhi: The Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing houses in Prayagraj in 2021 without giving homeowners sufficient time to challenge the action. A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and N. Kotiswar Singh expressed deep concern over the manner in which demolitions were carried out, emphasizing that such actions send a “shocking and wrong signal.” The petitioners, including advocate Zulfiqar Haider and professor Ali Ahmed, argued that they were served demolition notices late on a Saturday night, leaving them no opportunity to contest before their homes were torn down the very next day. The court reminded the state of the constitutional protections under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and warned that it could order the government to rebuild the demolished structures at its own cost.

The UP government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, defended its actions, stating that the affected residents had ample time to respond to the notices. However, the Supreme Court questioned the validity of the notice process and pointed out inconsistencies in the state’s claims regarding how and when the notices were served. The petitioners further argued that they were lawful lessees of the land and had applied for freehold conversion, but the authorities wrongly linked their properties to the late gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed. The demolition notice, issued on March 1, 2021, was served on March 6 and executed the following day, violating the standard legal procedure that allows individuals to appeal under the UP Urban Planning and Development Act.

Previously, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed their plea, citing the expiration of their lease in 1996 and rejecting their applications for freehold conversion in 2015 and 2019. However, the Supreme Court refused the state’s request to remand the case back to the High Court, stating that doing so would only delay justice. The bench expressed serious concerns about the government’s actions and its disregard for legal protocols, highlighting that judicial intervention was necessary to prevent future violations of fundamental rights. The case now stands as a significant precedent in the ongoing debate over the legality and ethics of state-led demolitions.