Ethics · 23 Jul 2026

bulldozer justice Allahabad High Court split verdict

With reference to the Allahabad High Court's split verdict on punitive demolitions, consider the following statements:

  1. The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling on punitive demolitions held that demolitions cannot be used to punish an accused person.
  2. Both judges on the Allahabad High Court bench agreed on imposing a two-year embargo on demolishing a dwelling linked to an FIR.
  3. The case originated from a family in Hamirpur district, Uttar Pradesh.
  4. Justice Atul Sreedharan used the term "particeps criminis" to describe the state as an accomplice in the illegality it later demolishes.

How many of the above statements are correct?

AOnly one
BOnly two
COnly three
DAll four

Tests the ability to catch that judicial consensus did NOT exist (a split verdict), a nuance requiring careful reading rather than assuming agreement from the outcome described.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: Allahabad HC's Split Verdict: When the State Punishes the Illegality It Enabled
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 23 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on new safeguards against punitive demolitions, with the matter now referred to a third judge for a final view.

Why for UPSC

This tests whether aspirants correctly register that the verdict was split (a nuance easily missed) rather than assuming judicial consensus, alongside precise recall of the case's origin and key terminology.

Prelims summary

The Allahabad High Court delivered a split verdict on demolition safeguards - only one judge proposed a two-year embargo - building on the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling that demolitions cannot punish an accused person.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.