Once again the comment of Allahabad High Court regarding bulldozer action in Uttar Pradesh is in discussion. But this time the reason is not only the court’s divided decision on ‘bulldozer justice’, but also the comment of a judge during the hearing, in which he expressed serious concern over the increasing corruption in the country while referring to the case of alleged theft of offerings in the Ram temple of Ayodhya. Justice Atul Sreedharan said that if even an incident like theft of offerings in Ram temple does not embarrass people, then it is difficult to embarrass the society with anything.
He even suggested that in cases of serious corruption, stringent provisions like death penalty under the Anti-Corruption Act should also be considered. This comment came at a time when the court was hearing the petition of a Muslim family, who fear that their house will be bulldozed.
The case reached the third judge
Actually, the matter was related to the legality of the bulldozer action. During the hearing, both the judges of the two-member bench of the High Court could not agree on the question whether after an FIR is registered against an accused, a general ban can be imposed on the demolition of his house or not. Justice Atul Sreedharan said that demolition action should not be taken for two years after the FIR is registered, while Justice Siddharth Nandan held that the court cannot give such a general direction.
Due to different opinions of both the judges, the case will now be sent to a third judge. However, in this entire decision, Justice Sreedharan’s comments on corruption and Ram temple offering controversy are the most discussed.
- The two-member bench of Allahabad High Court did not reach a consensus on the bulldozer action.
- Justice Atul Sreedharan made strong remarks on corruption while referring to the alleged theft of offerings in the Ram temple.
- He suggested considering strict laws like death penalty in serious cases of corruption.
- One judge suggested stopping the bulldozing operation for two years after the FIR, while another judge disagreed with this.
- The case will now go to the third judge to give the final decision.
Bulldozer case before third judge (Getty Image)
What is the whole matter?
This case is of Sumerpur police station area of Hamirpur district. Faimuddin and two other members of his family filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court. He says that after an FIR was registered against one of his relatives under POCSO and Conversion Act, the mob targeted his house with the connivance of the police. Later Famuddin was also made an accused. The family says that now the administration can demolish their house also and their property has been identified.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh government, it was said in the court that the petition has been filed ahead of time. According to the government, no demolition has taken place yet and the petitioners should respond to the notice.
Why was the court divided on bulldozer action?
During the hearing, Justice Atul Sreedharan said that many such cases have come before the court, in which demolition action was started by the Municipal Corporation or the Development Authority immediately after the FIR was registered against a person. According to him, if this action is taken to punish an accused or to take revenge, then it cannot be accepted.
In the context of these demolitions, he said that demolishing houses immediately after a crime is mainly to quench the bloodthirst of a society which has become accustomed to bulldozer justice. For this reason, he suggested that demolition action should not be taken on the accused’s house for two years from the date of registration of the FIR.
Why did the judge mention Ram temple? (Getty Image)
Whereas Justice Siddharth Nandan expressed a different opinion and said that the court assumes that the government will follow the principles of law and natural justice. If injustice is done to a person, he always has the right to approach the court. Therefore, the court cannot stop the government from taking action for any fixed period.
What did the judge say on theft of Ram temple offering?
In his 51-page judgment, Justice Atul Sridharan commented at length on corruption. He said that the case of alleged theft of offerings in Ayodhya’s Ram temple shows the lowest level of Indian honesty. He remarked that if the society was not disturbed even by such an incident, it would not feel ashamed of anything. According to him, corruption has now been accepted as normal in India and people do not consider it wrong until they are caught.
What suggestion did you give on corruption?
Justice Sreedharan also referred to the Transparency International 2025 report and said that India is ranked 91st among 182 countries in the corruption index, but this also does not embarrass the people. He said that the government should consider making stringent provisions like death penalty in serious corruption cases by amending the Anti-Corruption Act, 1988. According to him, systematic corruption is weakening the institutions of the country and now strict steps are necessary to deal with it.
Concern also expressed over illegal construction
Justice Sreedharan said that no illegal house is built overnight. Questioning the role of officials, he said that many times illegal constructions take place due to political or bureaucratic protection. Later, the same officials take action by running bulldozers, while the accountability of the corrupt system carrying out the construction is not fixed. He said that in many cases illegal construction is allowed by taking bribe and in the end the common people who buy houses have to bear the loss.
What is the Ram temple theft controversy?
The case of alleged theft of offerings in the Ram temple of Ayodhya came to light in June 2026, when an FIR was registered against eight people, including the employees counting donations in the temple. The investigating agencies allege that the cash and valuables received as offerings were embezzled, after which all the accused were arrested and sent to judicial custody. Seeing the seriousness of the case, the Supreme Court started monitoring the investigation and directed to constitute a new SIT. After this controversy, questions were also raised on the functioning of the temple trust and the transparency of the donation system.
Leave a Reply