Supreme Court Stands by Allahabad High Court’s Demolition Decision
The Supreme Court of India has upheld an order from the Allahabad High Court that mandates the demolition of approximately 72 illegally constructed lawyer chambers near the District and Sessions Court in Lucknow. This decision came during the hearing of the case Central Bar Association v. State of UP & Ors, where a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined a request to mediate the matter, urging the lawyers involved to vacate the premises voluntarily.
Justice Nath emphasized that encroachments by lawyers could not be justified by their positions within the local bar association. “You occupy the main road, the open space inside the court premises, raise unauthorized constructions, and then claim rights based on your association roles. That’s unacceptable. All unauthorized structures must be demolished,” Justice Nath asserted.
Personal Observations and Judicial Perspective
Having served as a judge in the state, Justice Nath shared his firsthand experiences with such encroachments, highlighting the obstruction of traffic and court premises. “I have personally observed the extent of these constructions during my tenure. The demolition must proceed to restore order,” he stated.
Senior Advocate Adish Aggarwala proposed finding an alternative site for the lawyers, suggesting they approach the State government for potential land allocation. Justice Nath, however, dismissed the idea of mediation, stating, “Mediation with lawyers? No. Dismissed.”
Concerns Over Court Premises
Justice Mehta questioned the responsibility for safeguarding court grounds, particularly when lawyers themselves contribute to the encroachments. He cited an incident from Rajasthan, where a lawyer converted a district judge’s parking space into a personal chamber. “Who protects the court premises if lawyers are the ones encroaching?” he queried.
High Court’s Directives and Enforcement
The Allahabad High Court had previously instructed the Lucknow Municipal Corporation to carry out demolition activities on a Sunday to minimize disruption to judicial proceedings. It also warned against interference by lawyers, highlighting the potential for legal action if they or their associates obstructed the process. Despite initial demolition efforts, the High Court noted that some structures had been re-encroached upon.
The High Court’s directives followed a clash between lawyers and Uttar Pradesh Police during an earlier removal attempt in the Qaiserbagh area. The Lucknow Nagar Nigam reported that over 100 illegal chambers had already been demolished, yet only 14 of the 72 identified chambers were successfully removed, with some being reoccupied.
To prevent further disturbances, the High Court instructed the Lucknow Police Commissioner, District Magistrate, and Municipal Commissioner to ensure a coordinated effort during the demolition process.
