The Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on 'bulldozer justice', with two judges disagreeing on whether courts can impose additional safeguards beyond Supreme Court guidelines. Justice Sreedharan proposed a two-year embargo on demolitions after an FIR and a one-year notice for structures over three years old, while Justice Nandan warned against judicial overreach. The matter now goes to a third judge, making this a key case on separation of powers and fundamental rights.
Exam Lens
Quick Exam Facts From News
1-Minute Revision
- ›Case Title: Faimuddeen vs State of Uttar Pradesh
- ›Judges: Justice Atul Sreedharan & Justice Siddharth Nandan
- ›Target this Data: Two-year embargo on demolitions after FIR; one-year notice for structures older than three years (proposed by Justice Sreedharan).
- ›Target this Nodal Body: Allahabad High Court (split verdict); Supreme Court (guidelines in In Re: Demolition of Structures).
- ›Target this Legal Point: Article 21 (right to shelter), Article 14 (equality), Article 300A (property), and separation of powers.
Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.
Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.