New Delhi: The Supreme Court issued a stern rebuke to Uttar Pradesh authorities for their “high-handed” approach in demolishing a house for road widening without issuing prior notice. The court directed the UP government to pay ₹25 lakh as compensation to the homeowner. This directive came as a three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, was hearing a suo motu petition from 2020, based on a letter complaint by Manoj Tibrewal Aakash from Maharajganj, whose ancestral home was demolished in 2019. The bench also included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

CJI expresses displeasure
Expressing disapproval, CJI Chandrachud questioned the government’s failure to follow due process, pointing out that the authorities merely used a loudspeaker to inform residents of the impending demolition. “This is completely high-handed. Where is the due process followed? We have the affidavit that says no notice was issued,” remarked the CJI. Addressing the UP government’s claim that Aakash had encroached on 3.7 square meters of public land, CJI Chandrachud responded, “You say he was an encroacher. We take it. But how can you start demolishing people’s houses like that? This is lawlessness… walking into somebody’s house and demolishing it without notice.”

Why was due process not followed? - Court asks
Justice Pardiwala criticized the manner in which the government acted without providing families adequate time to vacate, adding, “You can’t come with bulldozers and demolish houses overnight. You don’t give time to families to vacate. What about the household articles? There has to be due process followed.” He emphasized that informing people to vacate through a loudspeaker is insufficient and arbitrary.

Supreme Court calls for accountability and disciplinary action
In addition to ordering compensation, the Supreme Court directed the UP Chief Secretary to conduct an inquiry against the officers and contractors involved in the demolition and to initiate disciplinary action as necessary. The bench underscored the need for accountability, setting a one-month deadline for compliance with its directives.