U.P Demolition Row: SC says can’t pass omnibus orders for staying demolitions

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to pass an interim order staying demolitions across states. SC was hearing the plea filed by the Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind in the Supreme Court after the administration in Prayagraj, Kanpur, and Saharanpur demolished the houses of the accused, who were allegedly involved in violent protests following former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks on Prophet Muhammad.

The Live Law reported, that the bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha orally observed, “Rule of law has to be followed, no dispute. But can we pass an omnibus order? If under the Municipal law the construction is unauthorized, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities?”

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted for petitioners, “Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused in a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by rule of law.”

On June 16, 2022, the SC bench asked the Uttar Pradesh government to file a reply in the case, today U.P Government has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court that called the intervention applications filed by Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind “proxy litigation”. It told the court that the owners of two partially demolished properties in Kanpur have already admitted to the illegality of construction. The state government said the pleas against the demolitions were filed to mislead courts.

The Yogi Govt. in an affidavit said, “It is submitted that the present intervention applications are nothing but proxy litigation to protect illegal encroachments, and that too, not by actually affected parties if any and respondent no. 3 state takes strong exception to the same and to the applicant’s naming the state’s highest constitutional functionaries and attempting to falsely label the local development authority’s lawful actions as a method of collective retribution. Such allegations are false and vehemently denied.”

The state government added, “The two instances of demolition referred to by the applicant in the district of Saharanpur are cases of encroachment on public land and removal were strictly following the law.”

Jamiat’s plea had sought directions that no action be taken in Kanpur against the residential or commercial property of any accused in any criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure.

Responding to the allegations the U.P government said the Saharanpur demolitions were “lawful” and also denied the allegation that a minor boy was arrested while protesting the demolition.

The SC bench has asked the parties to complete pleadings in the matter and listed the matter for hearing on August 10. – with IANS inputs