Ram Mandir Donation Theft Marks ‘Nadir of Indian’s Integrity’: Allahabad High Court Judge
Justice Atul Sreedharan, in a split verdict on “bulldozer justice”, links the alleged Ram Temple donation theft to systemic corruption, proposes stronger anti-corruption laws and additional safeguards against punitive demolitions.
Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court made wide-ranging observations on corruption, the Ram Temple donation controversy and “bulldozer justice”.
Making a series of sweeping observations on corruption, governance and “bulldozer justice”, Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court has remarked that “nothing can shame a people” who remain unmoved by the alleged theftof donations at the Ram Temple, calling it the “nadir of the Indian’s integrity.”
Delivering a separate opinion in a split verdicton the scope of judicial safeguards against punitive demolitions, Justice Sreedharan said the recent controversy relating to alleged theft of Ram Temple donations was “the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back” and reflected how corruption had become normalised in society.
The observations came while deciding a writ petition filed by a Hamirpur family, which alleged that authorities targeted their residential house and commercial establishments after an FIR was registered in January 2026 against their relative under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act, the Information Technology Act and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act. During the pendency of the proceedings, petitioner no.1 was also arraigned as an accused. The family approached the High Court apprehending demolition of their properties despite the Supreme Court’s judgment laying down safeguards against punitive demolitions.
While examining the larger issue of “bulldozer justice”, Justice Sreedharan observed that the State continues to demolish houses of persons accused of offences despite the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.
According to the judge, authorities have merely substituted the description of “criminals” with “land mafia” or “illegal encroachers”, while continuing the same practice of razing homes.
He remarked that such action is largely undertaken “to satiate the perceived blood lust of a society fed on a staple diet of bulldozer justice over the electronic media, social media and messaging platforms”.
Justice Sreedharan further observed that the State appears convinced that society “suffers from collective schadenfreude” and would applaud “vigilante style summary justice” delivered through bulldozers even before the criminal justice system determines guilt. He said it is the duty of constitutional courts to evolve a jurisprudence capable of checking such executive action.
Discussing the socio-economic realities underlying unauthorised constructions, the judge said many residents of unauthorised colonies belong to the poor and lower middle class, driven there by poverty and the absence of affordable housing. At the same time, he observed that influential persons living in irregular constructions often remain “untouchable”because of wealth, bureaucratic or political patronage, and an “all-pervasive culture of corruption”.
It was in this context that Justice Sreedharan referred to the recent Ram Temple donation controversy, observing that “the recent controversy relating to the theft of donations at the Ram Temple is the proverbial last straw on the camel’s back. 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 judge went on to suggest that Parliament should consider strengthening anti-corruption laws, even proposing that the State examine whether the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, should be amended to prescribe the death penalty for corruption.
On the legal issue before him, Justice Sreedharan coined the expression “Retributive Exercise of Executive Discretion”, describing it as the “vilest specie”of colourable exercise of executive power. According to him, when municipal laws are invoked immediately after registration of an FIR to demolish the house of an accused, the real object often is not enforcement of planning laws but punishment of the accused and the entire family.
To prevent such misuse, Justice Sreedharan proposed that authorities should ordinarily not demolish the dwelling of a person accused of an offence for two years from the registration of the FIR. He also suggested that occupants of long-standing unauthorised dwellings should ordinarily receive one year’s prior notice before demolition proceedings commence, except where compelling public necessity requires immediate action.
Applying these principles, Justice Sreedharan quashed the demolition proceedings against the petitioners’ residence and Indian Lodge and directed that no fresh demolition proceedings be initiated against those properties for two years unless the State establishes a genuine public purpose.
However, Justice Siddharth Nandan disagreed with these proposed additional safeguards, holding that courts cannot prescribe restrictions beyond those laid down by the Supreme Court or contemplated by statute. Owing to the difference of opinion, the matter will now be placed before a third judge.
Case Title: Faimuddeen and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others
Bench: Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan
