The Allahabad High Court observed that, over decades, the average Indian has "normalised" corruption, to the extent that it is no longer considered wrong so long as one is not caught. (AI-generated image)The Allahabad High Court has delivered a split verdict on a plea challenging the apprehended demolition of a residential home following the registration of an FIR in Uttar Pradesh. While Justice Atul Sreedharan proposed granting a two-year period during which no demolition action should ordinarily be taken after the registration of an FIR, Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with the suggestion, resulting in a split verdict on that issue.Justice Atul Sreedharan, who favoured the two-year “hiatus,” even quoted late Urdu poet Bashir Badr’s famous lines, “लोग टूट जाते हैं एक घर बनाने में, तुम तरस नहीं खाते बस्तियां जलाने में” (People face ruination in just making a home and you feel no remorse setting ablaze entire settlements), and observed, “In a meaningful democracy, the right of the individual must be protected, if the need arises, from the might of the State.”However, both judges concurred that arbitrary demolitions must conform to the law. Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan held that punitive demolitions violate the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers, and directed that future demolitions of dwelling houses must strictly comply with due process, with violations being liable to invite contempt proceedings.“The Constitution also stands by the rights of the “little man” of this country who may have no prominence in society on account of his minimal financial status and not being a person of means. In removing dwelling places found non-compliant with the municipal laws, the Benthamite utilitarian approach of summarily evicting the few for the larger good of the many would be a square peg in a round hole in the Indian context,” the July 20 order read. Justices Siddharth Nandan and Atul Sreedharan observed that houses are not constructed overnight and that authorities entrusted with ensuring compliance with building laws often “deliberately” turn a blind eye.Referring to the recent controversy relating to the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple, the high court described it as the proverbial last straw that reflected a broader decline in public integrity.“Nothing can shame a people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram Temple which epitomises the nadir of the Indian’s integrity,” the court stated.The bench further observed that the collective absence of integrity affects every institution, including municipal and other public authorities, whose alleged dishonesty or inaction enables individuals to construct buildings that do not comply with municipal laws.Story continues below this adThe court added that, over decades, the average Indian has “normalised” corruption, to the extent that it is no longer considered wrong so long as one is not caught.The court also referred to Transparency International’s 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, noting that India ranked 91st among 182 countries, and observed that even this does not “shame us.”Highlighting that the law has traditionally prioritised the larger public good over individual rights in cases such as road widening or public development, the court observed that demolitions of dwelling places for such public purposes have often been upheld by courts where they are carried out in accordance with law.Pointing out that the Constitution is an “inorganic being” with its life infused by the aspirations of the people it serves, the court added that the Constitution also stands by the rights of the “little man” of this country who may have no prominence in society on account of his minimal financial status and not being a person of means. Story continues below this adObserving that houses are not constructed overnight, the high court said that authorities entrusted with ensuring compliance with building laws often “deliberately” turn a blind eye either because of political or bureaucratic patronage enjoyed by the builder or due to dishonesty, allowing such structures to come up in the first place.Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape. Expertise Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen. Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on: Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy. Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More Tags:allahabad high court