Demolitions should not be retaliatory: Supreme Court

Any action by you should be in accordance with the law, the apex court tells Uttar Pradesh government

Bulldozer being used to demolish the ‘illegally constructed’ residence of Javed Ahmed, a local leader who was allegedly the key conspirator of violent protests against now-suspended BJP leaders’ remarks on Prophet Muhammad, in Prayagraj. File | Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court on Thursday told the Uttar Pradesh government that demolitions could happen only in accordance with the provisions of law and could not be retaliatory after hearing petitions that State authorities had taken the “appalling” step to wreak “vengeance” on the homes of people allegedly linked to violence in the aftermath of the Prophet remarks row.

“Ultimately, the rule of law should prevail… any action by you should be in accordance with the law,” Justice A.S. Bopanna, leading a Vacation Bench also comprising of Justice Vikram Nath, addressed the Uttar Pradesh government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Harish Salve.

Issuing notice to the State and listing the case for hearing next week, the Bench said the question was whether the State had followed due process of law before demolishing the properties in places such as Prayagraj and Kanpur.

The court said that nothing “untoward” should be seen to happen during the weekend. “There should be some restraint… Everything should be fair. They should not be harmed. The question here is of following due process,” Justice Bopanna observed orally.

‘Misconceived’ third parties

The court did not give credence to the State’s argument that certain “misconceived” third parties such as the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had approached the court solely based on media reports about the nature and intent of the demolitions.

“Ultimately, the rule of law should prevail. This is not about who came to the court. This matter requires legal consideration,” Justice Bopanna responded.

The court agreed to the State government’s suggestion to file an affidavit with details to buttress its claim that the demolitions were done after prior notice was issued to affected persons and the buildings razed down were illegal. The court listed the case for further hearing next week. The Bench did not pass any interim order staying the demolitions.

‘Pattern in demolitions’

Senior advocate C.U.Singh, for the petitioner side, indicated a pattern to these demolitions.

“Retaliatory statements are made by high-functionaries of the State of Uttar Pradesh against stone-pelters and rioters. Demolitions of properties are done. Once demolitions are over, the authorities justify that the buildings pulled down by the bulldozers are illegal constructions,” Mr. Singh submitted.

He said many of these buildings reduced to rubble by bulldozers were homes belonging to the family members of those named in the FIRs.

“These are homes and shops belonging to, in some cases, to the father or the wife of the person accused. These are structures which have stood for over 20 years. The pattern followed by the State is something out of a playbook. This is not just shocking, but appalling,” Mr. Singh said.

‘Remarkable coincidence’

Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi and advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, also for the petitioner side, submitted that it was a “remarkable coincidence” that homes and shops were pulled down immediately after the statements of the high- functionaries in the State were published.

“This is a case of cherry-picking based on malafide intentions on the part of the authorities. The homes of only those persons who are named in the FIRs are picked and demolished. You cannot come overnight and demolish homes. There is no prior notice nor are the affected persons given a chance to appeal,” Mr. Ahmadi contended.

“Demolition cannot take place without issuance of prior notice. We are conscious of that,” Justice Bopanna noted.

Mr. Singh drew the court’s attention to Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 which required affected persons to be heard and given 15 days’ prior notice before proceeding with the demolition of their property. Besides this, the Act allowed a person aggrieved with the order of demolition entitled to appeal within 30 days.

‘Omnibus’ petitions

Countering, Mr. Mehta said the court could not entertain “omnibus” petitions questioning every demolition in the country. He said such petitions had been filed since the Jahangirpuri demolitions in Delhi. The Jamiat was not an aggrieved party. No affected person had come before the court with a specific case of injury.

Mr. Salve submitted that the demolition in Prayagraj was preceded by notices issued in May to the persons concerned. Notice was also served by the authorities before action was taken in Kanpur. In one case, notice was issued way back in August 2020.

“The media picks up these cases. Political statements are made and third parties rush to the court making omnibus statements to stop all demolitions. Why should there be any generic order? Please allow us to file an affidavit. We will put everything on affidavit, we are answerable to the court,” Mr. Salve submitted

Mr. Mehta indicated that the State side was better informed than the petitioner, who banked on media reports and had no direct cause of action.

To the court’s observation that the State should show restraint, especially during the weekend, now that the court was seized of the case, Mr. Mehta said the court could not pass a mandamus and if something were to happen “hypothetically”, if demolitions were carried out in accordance with the law, the injured party could approach the court with a plea of specific injustice done to him or her.

“You can file your objections, but make sure that nothing untoward happens in the meanwhile,” Justice Bopanna asserted.