On 24th October, the Supreme Court declined to consider a petition claiming that the authorities of Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh had violated its ruling over the demolition of houses. A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan stated that it was not inclined to consider the petitioner’s plea, which it highlighted was submitted by a party who was neither directly nor indirectly impacted by the alleged act. “We do not wish to open a Pandora’s box,” Justice Gavai remarked.
The bench asked how the petitioner was directly harmed by the alleged demolitions during the hearing after considering arguments from Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma, representing Rajasthan, and Additional Solicitor General KM Natraj, representing Uttar Pradesh. “In the facts of the present case, and particularly at the instance of the present applicants who are not directly or indirectly concerned with the alleged acts, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition,” the court pronounced. The petition was filed by an NGO named the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW).
Three demolition incidents from Haridwar in Uttarakhand, Jaipur in Rajasthan, and Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh were mentioned in the plea. The contempt plea included the district magistrates of the three cities as parties. The NFIW’s attorney contended that three incidences had occurred in defiance of the court’s decision since 1st October when it extended the stay on demolition measures without prior approval.
“Even if the concerned state authorities were of the opinion that the structures were illegal, the said structures were not covered by the categories carved out by this hon’ble court as exceptions to the general prohibition on demolition imposed viz. unauthorized structures in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies or cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law,” the plea claimed.
The petitioner presented the bench with details on the instances, emphasizing that the UP incident was connected to the case of a restaurant that was demolished after accusations of mixing vegetarian and non-vegetarian cuisine were made against it. Appearing on behalf of the Uttar Pradesh government, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj argued that NFIW is a third party that filed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in response to newspaper articles. He added that the purported incident involved clearing a walkway of encroachment.
On 19th October, the Haridwar district authorities took down an illegal mazar (mausoleum) at Mirpur village, Bahadarabad, Uttarakhand, under heavy security. On 20th October, a section of a building that was unlawfully built on temple property was dismantled by authorities. The building was built by a father-son duo who were arrested for stabbing ten Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) workers at a Sharad Purnima ceremony held on the temple grounds three days prior. On 21st October the authorities demolished a Muslim man’s restaurant in Uttar Pradesh’s Kanpur after the Bajrang Dal protested and charged that the proprietor had disguised his identity and served non-vegetarian food.
NFIW was merely bringing the cases to the attention of the court, which has the authority to take suo motu cognizance of the facts, the petitioner’s counsel contended. He further justified his client’s position by claiming that those impacted by two of the reported occurrences are currently incarcerated. However, Justice Gavai didn’t find any merit in their charges and noted, “Their family can come, somebody who is from that place can come. We can appreciate a PIL from a litigant coming from Haridwar, who has at least some facts within his knowledge. Otherwise, only on the basis of newspaper reports, we will be opening a Pandora’s box.”
An unconvinced Justice Gavai responded, “Let the journalists come before the court, we will examine,” when the attorney alleged how difficult it is now for journalists to report on such instances. The petitioner then claimed that those who are suffering frequently lack access to the court and that rejecting the petition on the grounds that NFIW is a “third party” could prevent other individuals from approaching it who are not directly involved but are from the impacted area. The court strongly objected to the assertion and expressed, “Don’t say that. Please don’t say that. There are public-spirited citizens everywhere now.”
“Let persons who have suffered by that demolition come before the court. If in spite of our orders, somebody’s structure is demolished, we will take care of that. You are not directly affected. If somebody genuinely comes, we will consider it,” the court pointed out regarding the matter of locus.
The Supreme Court has postponed rulings on a number of petitions asking the union and state governments to refrain from using extrajudicial penalties, such as demolishing the homes or businesses of defendants in criminal cases. The court continues to enforce the temporary injunction it previously issued prohibiting authorities from destroying the properties of people suspected of committing crimes without first obtaining its approval.
The apex court had declared in its 17th September order, which barred demolitions till 1st October without its permission, that the same would continue till it decides the matter. It did, however, make clear that unapproved structures on public roads including sidewalks, railroad tracks, or public areas like water bodies, among other things would not be subject to its order. It then recommended creating national guidelines for property demolition and stated that religious buildings in the centre of a road, whether they were temples or “dargahs” (shrines), had to be razed because the public interest came first.
