"Will Order Reconstruction At Your Cost" SC Slams UP Government For Demolishing Houses
“There is something called Article 21.” This is the remark made by Justice Abhay S Oka while hearing a case related to the demolition of a few houses by authorities in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court slammed the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the houses of a lawyer, a professor, and three others, in Prayagraj on Wednesday.
The persons whose homes were demolished had alleged that they were served notice on March 6, 2021, and the demolition was carried out on March 7, 2021. They received the notice late on a Saturday and the next day, authorities demolished their homes, allegedly skipping due legal procedures, and without giving them no chance to challenge the action. Along with a house, a lawyer’s entire library was also demolished.
Read Also: MP: Amid Supreme Court Order, BJP MLA Bulldozes Wall Of Muslim Settlement
While hearing the petition filed by advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows, and another individual, the top court expressed its strong disapproval, saying that the demolitions send a “shocking and wrong signal.”
“Prima facie, this action sends a shocking and wrong signal and this is something that needs to be corrected. “You are taking such drastic action in demolishing homes… “We know how to deal with such hyper-technical arguments. “After all, there is something known as Article 21 and the Right to Shelter,” the bench said.
Read Also: “No Poor’s Home Will Be Razed”: Akhilesh Yadav’s Swipe At Yogi Adityanath
Notably, Justice Oka has stated that the court will now order the state to reconstruct the demolished structures at its own expense, noting that that is the only way to do this. He pointed out the top court’s recent judgment which has laid down the procedure to be followed before demolition.
In November last year, the Supreme Court had came down heavily on authorities in various states against the alleged rampant demolition of homes, noting that executives cannot replace the judiciary and that the Bulldozer reminds of lawlessness. A piece of the judgement, “To have one’s own home, one’s own courtyard—this dream lives in every heart. It is a longing that never fades, to never lose the dream of a home,” a quote from a poet had went viral back then. The court had flagged misuse of the civil authorities and the extrajudicial nature of the action, while underlining that it has to consider the rights guaranteed under the Constitution that provide protection to individuals from arbitrary state action.
Earlier, Allahabad High Court had dismissed the petitioners’ plea against the demolition drive. The High Court had noted that the demolition involved a Nazul Plot in Prayagraj, leased in 1906, with the lease expiring in 1996, and applications for freehold conversion rejected in 2015 and 2019 and dismissed the petitions, concluding the petitioners had no legal rights since their transactions lacked the District Collector’s approval.
However, approaching the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that they were not trespassers but lawful lessees of the land and had applied to convert their leasehold rights into freehold property,
Attorney General R Venkataramani defended the state’s actions, claiming that the petitioners had enough time to respond to the notices. However, pointing out inconsistencies in the State’s claim on the manner of sending the notice, Justice Oka questioned the manner in which the notice was served. The Attorney General also suggested remanding the matter to the High Court for consideration. The Supreme Court rejected the suggestion, saying that it would cause unnecessary delay.
With the Supreme Court admonishing the state governments for its high-handed and “shocking demolition” of structures, it has kept the matter to March 21 for further hearing.
