The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the UP government’s growing trend of bypassing due process, whether by turning civil disputes into criminal cases or demolishing properties without notice, warning that such state overreach threatens the very foundation of rule of law. A report by Mudit Mathur
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the growing trend of weaponising criminal law to curb dissent. It has also expressed strong disapproval of the use of criminal law in civil matters. The Court criticised the emerging pattern of ‘bulldozer justice’ that bypasses due process. In several recent cases, it has observed that the Uttar Pradesh police have routinely converted civil disputes—particularly those involving financial disagreements—into criminal cases.
Civil dissent and criticism of government policies are increasingly being treated as criminal acts in Uttar Pradesh, with peaceful demonstrations being prohibited on the pretext of a potential breach of peace. Recently, civil protesters opposing the amendments to the Waqf Act were bound under preventive laws, while Samajwadi Party activists were booked under criminal charges for staging a peaceful sit-in in front of the Raj Bhavan, allegedly in disregard of their personal liberties.
The Supreme Court’s interventions in these matters underscore a broader concern: that the misuse of state power—whether through criminalising civil matters or resorting to extrajudicial demolitions—marks a serious departure from the rule of law. The Court has repeatedly warned that such practices, if left unchecked, risk eroding public confidence in legal institutions and may lead to arbitrary, discriminatory state actions, particularly against minority communities.
By demanding strict adherence to due process, including proper notice, transparent proceedings, and accountability of officials, the Supreme Court aims to reinforce constitutional safeguards in Uttar Pradesh and ensure that the administration of justice remains fair and impartial.
In a notable instance, while hearing a plea involving an FIR against individuals accused of failing to repay a loan, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan remarked: “There is a complete breakdown of the rule of law in Uttar Pradesh. Converting a civil matter into a criminal case is not acceptable. Every day, civil suits are being converted into criminal cases. It is absurd—merely not giving money cannot be turned into an offence.”
This criticism reflects the court’s growing concern that criminal proceedings are being misused to settle disputes that fall squarely within the civil domain, thereby weakening legal safeguards and due process. The court summoned senior police officials to explain their conduct and warned of contempt proceedings and possible imposition of costs if such practices persisted.
The court’s earlier judgment in Sharif Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh had already laid down specific requirements for proper documentation in charge sheets—requirements which, in several recent instances, appear to have been violated, raising further concerns about procedural lapses.
In Sharif Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court addressed two closely linked issues: the misuse of criminal law to deal with civil disputes, and the inadequate preparation of charge sheets, which fail to meet the standards required under due process.
Second, by mandating detailed, clear, and evidence-based charge sheets, the Supreme Court sought to ensure that only genuine criminal conduct is prosecuted and that the rights of the accused are fully protected through adherence to due process. This judgment stands as a landmark pronouncement reinforcing the rule of law and proper judicial procedure in the state.
The apex court was worried over the troubling trend in Uttar Pradesh where matters that are fundamentally civil—involving, for example, disputes over money or property—were being converted into criminal cases. The judgment questioned the propriety of using criminal proceedings to enforce recovery in situations where a civil remedy would normally be available.
The court found a lack of clarity and completeness in the charge sheets. A central issue was that the charge sheets filed by the investigating officers were deficient in their presentation. The charge sheets often contained repetitive or “copy–paste” information drawn directly from the FIR without a clear, independent assessment of the evidence. This practice left the courts with an inadequate basis for determining whether the facts truly supported criminal charges.
The Court was concerned that by not adhering to proper investigative and procedural norms, the rights of the accused were being compromised. Inadequate charge sheets meant that there was a failure to provide the accused with a clear account of the allegations and evidence against them, thereby infringing upon their right to a fair trial, which is a fundamental requirement of due process of law.
The Supreme Court’s opinions on the Rule of Law in Uttar Pradesh strongly criticize practices that bypass legal procedure—whether by misusing criminal law in civil disputes or by employing “bulldozer justice” without due process.
The Supreme Court has also weighed in on the practice, often referred to as “bulldozer justice,” in Uttar Pradesh, where state authorities have used bulldozers to demolish properties without following due process. The court’s directions are aimed at ensuring that even in cases involving unauthorized constructions or alleged criminal behaviour, state actions do not trample the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 21 (Right to Life) and 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution.
The Court has laid out specific procedural requirements to remedy these issues and has signalled that continued non-compliance will result in contempt proceedings and further penalties. These measures reflect the Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional rights and the integrity of the legal process in the state.
The Court’s directives in these cases emphasize: Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: Demolitions must not occur without first serving a “show-cause notice” by registered post, giving at least 15 days for an appeal or a personal hearing. The notice must detail the alleged violations, the scheduled hearing date, and the documents required for a response.
The aggrieved petitioners from Uttar Pradesh sought relief from what the Supreme Court later characterized as abuses of state power. In each category the Court not only remediated the particular wrong but also laid down broad guidelines to prevent future occurrences.
Debu Singh and Deepak Singh, sons of Baljeet Singh—challenged criminal proceedings initiated against them in connection with a financial dispute. They were accused (under Sections 406, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code) of criminal breach of trust and intimidation in a matter that the Court later observed was essentially civil (a dispute over Rs 25 lakh loan).The Supreme Court stayed criminal proceedings.
Dealing with the case, the bench, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K.V. Viswanathan directed the Director General of Police and the relevant investigating officer to file affidavits explaining why criminal law was triggered for a matter that clearly fell within the civil realm. The Court warned that if such practices continue, it may initiate contempt proceedings and impose costs on the state agencies.
In several consolidated petitions—filed by Homeowners, Shopkeepers, and Civil Society Groups whose properties (homes or shops) had been demolished without proper notice and opportunity to be heard—aggrieved petitioners challenged what came to be known in the media as “bulldozer justice.” Although specific names were not always individually highlighted, the petitions represented communities and property owners affected by extrajudicial demolition drives in areas such as Prayagraj.
In both sets of cases, the Supreme Court not only provided immediate relief to the aggrieved petitioners by halting or modifying the state action (staying criminal proceedings in the financial dispute case and imposing strict procedural safeguards on demolitions) but also set out systemic reforms intended to reassert the rule of law in Uttar Pradesh. These measures are designed to prevent the misuse of state power—whether by converting civil disputes into criminal matters or by resorting to extrajudicial demolition—and to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.
