In a landmark verdict reaffirming the fundamental right to shelter, the Supreme Court of India has condemned the Uttar Pradesh government and the Prayagraj Development Authority for their “high-handed” demolition of homes in 2021. The court has ordered the state to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to affected homeowners within six weeks, underscoring the importance of due process and legal protections against arbitrary state action.
The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, came in response to a plea by advocate Zulfiqar Haider, professor Ali Ahmed, and others whose homes were demolished with barely a day’s notice. Expressing strong disapproval of the bulldozer action, the court observed, “This shocks our conscience. There is something called right to shelter, due process of law.”
The petitioners contended that the demolition notices, dated March 1, 2021, were served on them only on March 6, with their homes being razed on March 7—giving them no reasonable opportunity to challenge the move before the appellate authority, as mandated under Section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act. The state government, they argued, had wrongfully assumed that the land in question belonged to gangster-politician Atiq Ahmed, who was killed in a police encounter in 2023.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court castigated the authorities for their handling of the notices, questioning why they were merely affixed to the properties instead of being sent through registered post. “This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this… And fix compensation of Rs 10 lakh in each case. That is the only way to do this. So that this authority will always remember to follow due process,” Justice Oka remarked.
The court emphasized that the right to shelter is integral to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. “Carrying out demolition in such a manner shows insensitivity on the part of the statutory development authority,” the bench stated, stressing that homeowners were denied a “reasonable opportunity” to present their case.
The ruling has sparked wider discussions on governance and the use of demolition as an enforcement tool in India. The Supreme Court’s decision signals a warning to state administrations against overreach and arbitrary demolitions that fail to adhere to due process.
The case also draws attention to a broader pattern of demolition drives in Uttar Pradesh, which have often led to accusations of political and communal targeting. The court’s strong words may set a precedent for stricter judicial scrutiny over such actions in the future.
With this ruling, the affected homeowners have achieved some measure of justice, but the verdict raises critical questions—can financial compensation truly repair the emotional and material damage inflicted? More importantly, will this judgment serve as a deterrent against future instances of hasty and unlawful demolitions? The Supreme Court has spoken, but the real test lies in its enforcement and in preventing such injustices from recurring.
