1 week ago
Supreme Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Lucknow Court Constructions
The Supreme Court considered a dispute about buildings and shops built without permission at a court complex in Lucknow.
Some of these structures were built on roads, open spaces, and utility land.
The court said they blocked roads and made traffic difficult.
It dismissed the lawyers’ association’s challenge to the demolition proceedings.
Lawyers who occupy the unauthorised structures must leave them peacefully.
A lawyer asked whether another place could be provided for them.
The judges said association leaders and members could not claim a special right to stay.
The court also refused to send the dispute to mediation.
The Allahabad High Court had already ordered officials to help remove the remaining illegal structures without disrupting court work.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Central Bar Association, Lucknow’s challenge to proceedings over unauthorised constructions and encroachments.
The court directed lawyers occupying illegal structures to vacate them peacefully.
A bench said association positions do not create a right to occupy unauthorised structures.
The Allahabad High Court had identified 72 encroachments and reported that more than 100 illegal chambers had been demolished under its directions.
The Supreme Court rejected requests for mediation and suggested lawyers seek alternative land or government assistance separately.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Central Bar Association, Lucknow lawyers occupying unauthorised structures, and Allahabad High Court officials.
- What
- The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to proceedings against illegal constructions and encroachments and ordered the structures removed.
- Where
- Court premises in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
- When
- The Supreme Court ruling was delivered on Tuesday; the Allahabad High Court order cited in the report was dated August 4.
- Why
- The structures allegedly occupied public pathways and utility land and obstructed roads and traffic.
Court and Demolition Authorities
Lawyers Seeking Alternatives
Whether structures should remain
Court and Demolition Authorities
The Supreme Court said unauthorised constructions obstructed roads and traffic and that all such structures had to be demolished.
Lawyers Seeking Alternatives
The lawyers’ side challenged the proceedings and sought continued consideration of their occupation through the association.
Alternative accommodation
Court and Demolition Authorities
The Supreme Court said association positions did not establish a right to occupy unauthorised structures and rejected the plea.
Lawyers Seeking Alternatives
Senior advocate Adish Aggarwala asked whether an alternate place could be allotted and suggested seeking land or a lawyers’ society.
Mediation
Court and Demolition Authorities
The bench rejected a request to refer the matter to mediation.
Lawyers Seeking Alternatives
The lawyers’ side requested mediation to address the dispute.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Central Bar Association, Lucknow
- Supreme Court bench
- Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
- Initial encroachments identified
- 72 chambers or shops
- Initial removals reported
- 14 of the 72 identified encroachments
- Additional demolition reported
- More than 100 illegally constructed chambers had been demolished pursuant to Allahabad High Court directions
- Court’s direction
- Unauthorised structures must be removed and occupants should vacate peacefully
- Proposed timing for further exercise
- A Sunday, so judicial work would not be hampered
Quotes
Justice Vikram Nath
Supreme Court judge and member of the bench hearing the plea
“You occupy the main road, you occupy the open space inside the court premises, raise unauthorised construction and then say I am elected as the President of the association, I am a member of the governing body, and therefore I have a right to continue, no,”
thehansindia.com
“All demolitions have to take place. I have seen it myself when I was there for two years as a senior judge. I know what kind of constructions, how the roads have been obstructed, traffic is completely obstructed. Demolition has to take place,”
thehansindia.com
Sources
Related news
Supreme Court Considers Challenge to Lucknow Lawyers’ Chamber Demolition
Calcutta High Court Stays Demolition of Kolkata Construction
Calcutta High Court Extends Stay on Amtala Office Demolition
Supreme Court contempt notice to LDA Vice-Chairman in Lucknow fire
Calcutta High Court Halts Planned Demolition in Tollygunge
Cyberabad Intensifies Crackdown on Unauthorised Construction
PUCL Urges CJI Action Over Rajasthan High Court Allegations
Supreme Court Questions IPS Deputation for CAPF Leadership Positions
Supreme Court Quashes 20-Year Conviction, Reaffirms Juvenile Legal Protections
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
