Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Apr 1: The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Uttar Pradesh government for its bulldozer operation in Prayagraj, calling it "inhuman and illegal." The court has ordered the state government to pay Rs 10 lac as compensation to each victim whose house was demolished.

During the hearing, the bench remarked that the Prayagraj Development Authority had carried out demolitions without following due process. "The state cannot act as if it is above the law. Citizens have fundamental rights that must be protected," the court stated, emphasising that the government must uphold constitutional values.

"The demolition process was carried out brutally using bulldozers. This country is governed by the rule of law. Houses of citizens cannot be demolished in this manner. The right to shelter or housing is an integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Authorities, particularly the Prayagraj Development Authority, must keep this in mind," the court remarked, strongly objecting to the operation.

Earlier, the victims had approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the demolition of their houses. However, the high court had dismissed their plea. The petitioners then moved the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court’s decision.

Taking up the appeal, the Supreme Court, during its hearing on March 6, severely criticised the BJP-led Uttar Pradesh government and the Prayagraj Development Authority for illegally demolishing houses using bulldozers.

During the proceedings, Justice Oka strongly referred to "a chapter called Article 21 in the Constitution." He further remarked, "We will order the government to reconstruct the demolished buildings at its own expense. That is the only option left now."

Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the government, argued that the petitioners had sufficient time to respond to the notices. Responding to this, Justice Oka questioned the manner in which the notices were issued and pointed out the lack of commitment in the state's argument regarding the notice-serving process.