The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for demolishing the homes of a lawyer, a professor and three others in Prayagraj in 2021, saying that such actions send a “shocking and wrong signal”, Live Law reported.

“There is something called as Article 21,” the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh said, referring to the provision in the Constitution that guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

“Prima facie, this action sends shocking and wrong signal and this is something that needs to be corrected,” PTI quoted the bench as saying. “You are taking such drastic action of demolishing homes...We know how to deal with such hyper technical arguments.”

The bench pointed to its November order that laid down the procedure to be followed before such demolitions.

Oka remarked that the court would order the state to reconstruct the demolished structures. “That is the only way to do this,” he added.

There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for demolishing property as a punitive measure. Nevertheless, the practice has become commonplace, mainly in states ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party.

In its November 13 order, the Supreme Court held that state authorities cannot demolish the properties of citizens merely because they are accused or convicted of crimes. The court, hearing a batch of petitions seeking its intervention against punitive demolitions by state governments, had also issued guidelines to curb instances of “bulldozer justice”.

The comments on Wednesday were made by the bench while hearing a petition filed by advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, two widows and another person. The group had moved the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of their petition against the demolition of their houses in 2020.

The petitioners claimed that the state government had incorrectly linked their land to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, Live Law reported. Ahmed was killed in April 2023.

The petition alleged that the authorities issued the notices for the demolition late at night in March 2021 and razed their homes the following day without giving them an opportunity to challenge the order.

The petitioners held the leases for the land, the petition said, adding that they had applied to convert their rights into freehold property.

During the proceedings in the Supreme Court, Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the state government, said that the petitioners had been given adequate time to respond to the notices.

However, the bench questioned the manner in which the notice was served and noted the inconsistencies in the claims made by the state government about sending it.

Venkataramani then said that the matter could be sent back to the High Court for consideration, Live Law reported. However, the bench said that returning the plea to the High Court would cause unnecessary delays.

The Supreme Court will hear the matter next on March 21.

Also read: How Supreme Court finally checked ‘bulldozer justice’ – and why it may not be enough