Nothing can shame people unfazed by Ram temple donation theft: HC

Taking up the issue of alleged embezzlement of donations at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, Justice Atul Sreedharan of the Allahabad High Court has observed that nothing can shame those who are unfazed by the development. The judge also suggested death penalty for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Delivering strong observations on the Uttar Pradesh government's recent bulldozer actions, Justice Sreedharan simultaneously criticised the systemic corruption plaguing Indian institutions, noting that the recent "theft" of donations at the Ram temple represents the "nadir of Indians' integrity".
Elaborating on this, he added that an average Indian has normalised corruption and no longer considers it wrong unless caught. He further remarked that even the fact that India ranks 91 among 182 countries in the Transparency International 2025 report "does not shame us". Expressing concerns over how deeply corruption has been normalised in the society, the judge went as far as suggesting that the State should consider amending the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to introduce the death penalty for convicts.
The scathing observations were made in Justice Sreedharan's 51-page opinion in a split verdict dealing with the issue of "bulldozer justice" and the demolition of houses belonging to accused persons under the guise of municipal-code violations.Setting the context for these demolitions, the judge said demolishing a house immediately after an offence is largely to satiate the "perceived blood lust" of a society fed on a staple diet of "bulldozer justice".He highlighted that despite Supreme Court verdicts, the demolitions continue with impunity "as though these judgments do not exist or the State is certain that the defiance towards the law laid down by the highest court of the land shall not visit them with any adverse consequences".
While examining how unauthorised structures come into existence in the first place, Justice Sreedharan noted that no dwelling place comes up overnight. "The authorities who have the duty to ensure that such structures do not come up close their eyes deliberately on account of political or bureaucratic support that the builder has, or out of dishonesty," he said. The court further observed that the creation of non-compliant houses is facilitated by dishonest officials who take bribes from builders and leave the ultimate buyer to suffer the enforcement of the law and face sudden eviction decades later. To tackle the immediate issue of demolishing the houses of a person accused of an offence, Justice Sreedharan directed that it would be impermissible for the state to take any action for a period of two years from the date of registration of the FIR; however, Justice Siddharth Nandan differed on this specific direction.