The Supreme Court on Monday said that it was disturbed by the manner in which the Uttar Pradesh government had demolished the homes of a lawyer, a professor and three others in Prayagraj in 2021 within a day of issuing them a notice, Bar and Bench reported.

“It shocks the conscience of the court the manner in which within 24 hours of the notice it was done,” The Indian Express quoted a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan as saying.

The court said that it would direct the authorities to reconstruct the homes subject to the outcome of the case.

“We are telling you we will not tolerate such actions,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying. “State should have minimum regard to the principles of natural justice.”

The judges were 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 2021.

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 argued that they held the leases for the land, adding that they had applied to convert their rights into freehold property.

On the other hand, the Uttar Pradesh government claimed that the petitioners had no legal rights and were illegally occupying public land.

At the hearing on Monday, the bench said that it was prepared to allow the reconstruction of the petitioners’ homes if they filed affidavits stating that they would appeal the demolition order within the legal timeframe and not create third-party rights over the land, Bar and Bench reported.

They would also have to accept that the demolitions would take place again at their own cost if their appeal fails, it added.

In response, Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the state government, claimed that notices had been issued to the petitioners well in advance: in December, January and March that year.

This was not a case of persons being rendered homeless, Venkataramani said, adding that the homes in question were not primary residences.

However, the Supreme Court noted that the notices were mostly served to the petitioners by affixing them on their properties and only the final one was sent by post.

“Whenever it suits you, you will send by post,” Bar and Bench quoted the bench as saying. “This is a design.”

Affixation must only be the last mode of serving the notice, the Supreme Court said.

The bench also told the authorities to be careful while dealing with claims of illegal construction. “If there are illegal constructions, you must be very careful and follow due process of law,” it added.

At an earlier hearing on March 5 too, the Supreme Court had criticised the state government for demolishing the petitioners’ homes, saying that such actions send a “shocking and wrong signal”.

“There is something called as Article 21,” the bench had 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 had quoted the bench as having said. “You are taking such drastic action of demolishing homes...We know how to deal with such hyper technical arguments.”

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

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”.