The Supreme Court of India on Monday, February 23, 2026, addressed concerns raised by residents whose homes were demolished in Lucknow, stating that those rendered homeless could approach the district election officer to ensure their names are included in the electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision process.

The matter came before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, which was hearing a petition filed by Sana Parveen. The petition highlighted the plight of residents of Akbar Nagar in Lucknow whose residential and commercial properties were demolished following eviction notices issued in September 2023.

The case touches upon sensitive issues of housing rights, urban development, electoral participation, and administrative responsibility.

Background of the Demolition Drive

Akbar Nagar in Lucknow witnessed a major demolition drive after authorities identified several structures as illegal constructions along the Kukrail river.

Local authorities had issued eviction notices to residents in September 2023. Subsequently, both homes and shops were razed in what many described as a large-scale bulldozer action.

While the administration maintained that the demolitions were necessary to remove encroachments and protect the river ecosystem, affected residents argued that they were left without adequate rehabilitation and basic documentation of residence.

Petition Before the Court

The plea filed by Sana Parveen brought attention to a critical issue — the risk of disenfranchisement faced by individuals who no longer have an identifiable residential address.

The petitioner argued that the demolition had rendered many families homeless, raising concerns about their eligibility and ability to participate in electoral processes.

The Bench examined whether individuals lacking a fixed address due to demolition could still ensure their inclusion in the electoral roll during the Special Intensive Revision.

Court’s Observation

The Supreme Court clarified that persons whose homes were demolished have the right to approach the district election officer.

During the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), electoral rolls are updated to include eligible voters and remove ineligible names. The Court indicated that affected residents could seek assistance from the election authorities to ensure their voting rights are not compromised.

The Bench did not immediately pass a broader order on demolition policy but focused on protecting electoral rights.

Electoral Rights and Identifiable Abode

One of the key legal questions raised was whether a person without a permanent residence could be included in the voter list.

The right to vote is a fundamental aspect of democratic participation. While voting is a statutory right under election laws, courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of ensuring that eligible citizens are not excluded unfairly.

In cases where homes are demolished and individuals are displaced, the requirement of proof of residence can become complicated.

The Court’s direction recognises that administrative mechanisms must account for such exceptional circumstances.

Special Intensive Revision Explained

The Special Intensive Revision is conducted periodically by election authorities to verify and update voter lists.

During this exercise, officials conduct field verification, accept claims and objections, and update records.

The Supreme Court’s suggestion that affected individuals approach the district election officer ensures that there is an official channel available for grievance redressal.

Impact on Akbar Nagar Residents

For residents of Akbar Nagar, the demolition drive not only resulted in loss of shelter and livelihood but also raised concerns about documentation.

Many residents reportedly lost important documents during the demolition.

Without address proof, enrolling in the voter list or updating existing entries can become difficult.

The Court’s guidance provides a potential pathway for such individuals to safeguard their electoral identity.

Broader Debate on Bulldozer Demolitions

In recent years, demolition drives in various states have sparked debates about due process, rehabilitation, and proportionality.

Supporters argue that demolitions are necessary to remove illegal constructions and maintain urban order.

Critics contend that sudden demolition without adequate rehabilitation leads to social injustice and vulnerability.

The present case adds another dimension — the possible impact on political participation.

Legal and Constitutional Context

The Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty.

While property rights are no longer fundamental rights, due process and fair administrative action remain constitutional principles.

Electoral inclusion, though governed by statutory law, is closely tied to democratic values.

The Supreme Court’s intervention signals the importance of balancing enforcement actions with fundamental democratic participation.

Role of District Election Officer

The district election officer plays a central role in managing voter registration and revisions at the district level.

By directing affected individuals to approach this authority, the Court ensures that there is a designated point of contact.

Election officials may examine alternative proofs, temporary addresses, or other supporting documents to facilitate inclusion.

Administrative Responsibility

The issue also raises questions about coordination between municipal authorities and election officials.

When large-scale demolitions occur, mechanisms may be required to track displaced persons to prevent exclusion from civic services.

Urban governance increasingly requires integrated planning that considers housing, documentation, and citizen rights.

Voices from the Ground

Residents of Akbar Nagar have reportedly expressed concern about their uncertain future.

Many families who lived there for years had established social and economic ties.

The demolition disrupted not only their housing but also small businesses operating in the locality.

In such contexts, ensuring continued access to civic rights becomes critical.

Judicial Approach

The Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant adopted a practical approach by focusing on an immediate administrative remedy.

Rather than issuing sweeping directives, the Court identified a procedural solution within the existing legal framework.

Such incremental steps often form part of judicial strategy in complex social issues.

Future Course of Action

The petition may continue to address broader concerns about rehabilitation and procedural fairness.

Meanwhile, the emphasis remains on preventing disenfranchisement during the ongoing revision process.

Affected individuals are expected to approach election authorities with available documentation and request necessary inclusion or correction.

Join our Telegram Channel for Latest News and Regular Updates.

Start your Mutual Fund Journey  by Opening Free Account in Asset Plus.

Start your Stock Market Journey and Apply in IPO by Opening Free Demat Account in Choice Broking FinX.