Justice Atul Sreedharan's 51-page opinion in an Allahabad High Court split verdict on alleged "bulldozer justice" goes far beyond the legality of demolition drives.
Interwoven with his analysis of punitive demolitions is an uncompromising critique of corruption, which he describes as a crisis of integrity that has permeated institutions and society alike.
In the opinion, seen by Moneycontrol, the judge argues that corruption has become so deeply entrenched that even the alleged theft of donations at the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has failed to evoke public outrage, prompting him to suggest that the State consider introducing the death penalty for those convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The observations form part of Justice Sreedharan's opinion in a split verdict concerning the demolition of properties belonging to persons accused of crimes.
While Justice Siddharth Nandan agreed with several directions relating to compliance with the Supreme Court's rulings on demolition of structures, he disagreed with certain additional directions proposed by Justice Sreedharan, including his suggestion that authorities should ordinarily refrain from initiating demolition proceedings against an accused person's dwelling for two years from the registration of an FIR.
At the heart of Justice Sreedharan's reasoning is his view that corruption is no longer treated as a social evil. "Over decades, the average Indian has normalised corruption. It is no longer wrong as long as one does not get caught," he observed, adding that India's ranking of 91 among 182 countries in Transparency International's 2025 report "does not shame us."
It is in that context that the judge referred to the alleged Ram Temple donation theft. Calling it "the proverbial last straw on the camel's back," he remarked, "Nothing can shame a people who remain unfazed by the theft at the Ram Temple which epitomises the nadir of the Indian's integrity."
Justice Sreedharan argued that the problem extends well beyond individual acts of corruption and has become embedded in governance itself.
According to him, unauthorised buildings do not emerge overnight; they are made possible because officials tasked with enforcing planning laws deliberately ignore violations, either due to political or bureaucratic patronage or because of dishonesty.
Builders, he observed, benefit from this nexus, while unsuspecting homebuyers ultimately suffer when authorities invoke municipal laws years later to seal or demolish their homes.
The judge went a step further by describing the State as particeps criminis -- an accomplice -- in such cases. In his view, governments become active participants when they allow illegal constructions to flourish through official connivance and continue to extend sovereign services such as water and electricity to those structures.
He described this as evidence of a "collective absence of integrity" affecting institutions, including development authorities.
Justice Sreedharan also warned that corruption carries consequences far beyond administrative failure. He said it leads to the unlawful concentration of wealth "in the hands of a few," widens the divide between the rich and the poor, and lays "the script for civil unrest in days to come."
Against this backdrop, the judge proposed what he acknowledged would be an extraordinary legislative response. "If the State is serious, actually serious, about curtailing corruption and retrieving India from the abject morass of dishonesty and complete lack of integrity, it should consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to include the death penalty for those convicted of corruption," he said.
These observations were made while Justice Sreedharan examined the increasing use of municipal law violations against properties linked to accused persons.
He criticised the practice of demolishing homes immediately after the registration of criminal cases, describing it as an attempt to satisfy the "perceived blood lust" of a society conditioned by "bulldozer justice."
He also observed that such demolitions continue despite the Supreme Court's judgments regulating the exercise, "as though these judgments do not exist," and proposed that whenever action is initiated against an allegedly illegal structure, simultaneous proceedings should also be launched against officials whose corruption or dereliction enabled the violation in the first place.