“SC criticizes development authority for Prayagraj demolition, orders Rs 10 lakh compensation to petitioners”

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) for its role in the controversial demolition of properties in the city, calling it an act that “shocks the conscience.” The Court not only criticized the manner in which the demolitions were carried out but also directed the PDA to compensate the affected petitioners with a sum of Rs 10 lakh each. This ruling comes after the Court reviewed the demolition process and its impact on the residents, finding several irregularities and violations of due process.

The demolition took place in early 2023, during an operation led by the Prayagraj Development Authority in a bid to clear encroachments in the city. The exercise, intended to remove illegal constructions, drew immediate backlash from residents who claimed that their homes were unjustly razed without proper notice or adherence to the law. Many of those affected were not given sufficient time to relocate or secure their belongings before the bulldozers arrived. As a result, a number of families were left without shelter, with their properties destroyed in the blink of an eye.

In response to these actions, several petitioners approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legality and fairness of the demolitions. They argued that the demolition drive was carried out in a manner that violated their rights, including the right to life and the right to shelter. They also contended that the PDA did not follow proper procedures, including providing adequate notice or opportunities for the affected people to contest the action. Their case highlighted the lack of transparency in the process and raised concerns over the fairness and legality of the demolition drives conducted by local authorities across various regions in India.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court underscored the significance of adhering to constitutional and legal safeguards before taking any action that might result in the displacement of residents. The Court emphasized that demolitions must not only be carried out following due legal process but also with sensitivity to the human costs involved. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who led the bench, remarked that the actions of the PDA were “high-handed” and lacked proper planning, causing severe distress to the affected families. The bench also pointed out that the authorities failed to ensure that residents were given fair opportunities to seek redress or move their possessions before their homes were destroyed.

Moreover, the Supreme Court noted that the demolition drive appeared to be undertaken hastily, without providing adequate rehabilitation or alternative accommodation for the displaced residents. The Court also took into account the fact that some of the affected properties had been built over many years and were inhabited by families who had made them their homes. While the Court recognized the need for urban planning and the removal of illegal constructions, it stressed that the authorities must adopt a more humane approach, especially when the affected individuals are vulnerable and have no other place to go.

As a result of these findings, the Supreme Court directed the Prayagraj Development Authority to pay a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to each of the petitioners whose properties were demolished. The Court further ordered the PDA to ensure that the compensation be paid without delay and that a detailed report on the demolition process and its impact be submitted to the Court in a month’s time. The ruling serves as a strong reminder to authorities about the importance of following due process and respecting the rights of individuals, particularly those who may be impacted by such large-scale actions.

The case has also sparked a wider debate on the issue of urban development, land use, and the displacement of marginalized communities. Critics argue that such demolitions often disproportionately affect low-income and marginalized groups, who are already struggling to secure basic rights such as housing and employment. On the other hand, supporters of the demolition drive claim that it is necessary to tackle encroachment, which hampers proper urban planning and development.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is expected to have significant implications for future demolition drives, not just in Prayagraj but across India. The Court’s strong stance on protecting the rights of residents against arbitrary actions by local authorities could influence how similar cases are handled in the future. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that government actions are not only lawful but also ethical and compassionate, especially when they affect the lives of vulnerable people.

In the aftermath of the ruling, legal experts have called for greater transparency and accountability from development authorities, urging them to consider the broader human implications of their actions. The decision to compensate the petitioners also sets a precedent for other cases where individuals are unfairly displaced or affected by government actions. As cities like Prayagraj continue to grow and develop, it will be crucial for authorities to balance urban planning needs with the rights and dignity of residents.