New Delhi: In a scathing judgement on April 1, the Supreme Court directed the Prayagraj Development Authority in Uttar Pradesh to pay Rs. 10 lakh to six people whose houses were illegally demolished.The judgement comes at a time when the Uttar Pradesh government under chief minister Adityanath has been defending ‘bulldozer justice’ – the authorities’ stance of demolishing the property of usually Muslim people accused of crimes.The Wire had earlier reported on how one of the demolished houses belonged to a retired Urdu professor Ali Ahmed Fatmi. The harsh action hurt Fatmi financially and socially destabilised him, the report had said. “I cannot even bear to look at it,” he had told The Wire.Prayagraj administration also demolished his daughter Naila Fatmi’s house as well as adjoining properties of lawyer Zulfiquar Haider and two others.LiveLaw has reported on how the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that the demolition was carried out in violation of due process.Here are some notable things that the Supreme Court bench said.Article 21Article 21 of the constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty. It ensures certain safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of life and liberty.“The authorities and especially the development authority must remember that the right to shelter is also an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India…Considering the illegal action of the demolition which is in violation of rights of the appellants under Article 21 of the Constitution, we direct the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay compensation of 10 lakhs each to the appellants.”Conscience“These cases shock our conscience. Residential premises of the appellants have been high-handedly demolished in the matter which we have discussed in detail…This shocks our conscience. There is something called the right to shelter, something called due process,” Justice Oka said.The report on The Wire had noted how Fatmi had never quite been able to fully understand why his house was demolished. The administration had no reason to target him, he said. “We had been paying the house tax and the water tax,” he said.The Supreme Court on November 13 last year had also ruled that it was “totally unconstitutional” to demolish a person’s house without due process of law merely because they were accused or convicted in a criminal case.Process of serving noticesThe court also observed that merely fixing the notice on the premise – and not handing them in person or by post – is not enough.“This affixing business must be stopped. They have lost their houses because of this,” Justice Oka said.The court also recorded significant loopholes in how the procedure was handled. While the show cause notice was issued under Section 27 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act – which sees the demolition of unauthorised structures – on December 18, 2020, it was affixed the same day.The order of demolition dated January 8, 2021, was affixed but not sent by registered post. Post was sent on March 1, 2021 and was received March 6, 2021. The demolition took place a day after the post was received, giving the recipients no time to appeal or even react.CompensationThe judges held that compensation was the only way to impress the seriousness on authorities.“We will record this whole thing as illegal. 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 said.
