Journalism of Courage
Underlining that the “rule of law has to prevail” and “no demolition can take place without following the due process of law”, the Supreme Court Thursday sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government on a plea by Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind which alleged illegal demolition of private properties in the state following violent protests over remarks against the Prophet.
Fixing June 21 as the date of the next hearing, and asking the UP government to file its objections in the meantime, the bench of Justices A S Bopanna and Vikram Nath did not pass any interim order staying demolitions, but said “now that notice is being issued and reply is being filed, make sure nothing untoward happens in the meanwhile.”
“When the issue is before the court, there should be some restraint,” Justice Bopanna said.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the district authorities, maintained that due process was followed in the three cases — one in Prayagraj and two in Kanpur — being cited by the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind.
Providing details of the dates on which notices were issued in the three cases and follow-up action taken after alleged failure to comply, Salve said “the media picks it up, links it with some political statement and all the hype is created and it’s said an umbrella order should be passed”. He said he would convey the concerns of the bench to the authorities.
Justice Bopanna said “everything should look fair”.
The bench said it did not mean to say there should be no demolition at all, but it was only saying that procedure must be followed.
Appearing for the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, Senior Advocate C U Singh said though the court had earlier issued notice on a matter challenging demolitions in other states, it had not passed any interim order and “taking advantage” of that “a spate of demolitions have taken place” in Uttar Pradesh and “on each occasion, statements are made that these are in retaliation, that people who are allegedly goondas or rioters or stone-pelters or persons who have allegedly indulged in violence due to some communal issues and so on, that their houses are being demolished because of that”.
“Statements are being made by high constitutional functionaries, right from the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh downward, and several others. But once the demolitions are carried out or immediately thereafter, they are sought to be justified on the ground that these are illegal constructions. This is happening again and again, and it’s like a playbook being used. To my mind, it’s not shocking but absolutely appalling,” he said.
“This is something we have never seen in this nation, not during the Emergency, not even during pre-Independence times… that an allegation is made against somebody and their home and shops and offices and the place of business are demolished. These homes may not even be the home of that person but of the father of that person, mother of that person. Allegations are made against X and the home of immediate relatives is demolished. In some cases, these are homes standing for 20 years, 25 years, 30 years, pucca houses and so on. What is happening is unconstitutional and this is being done by targeting a particular community, something absolutely horrifying,” Singh said.
Appearing for the UP government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said it’s “very curious” that an organisation like Jamiat filed a plea but none of those affected came forth to file any petition. Referring to the litigation over the demolition drive in the Jahangirpuri area of Delhi, Mehta said “when such issues arise, everybody wants to have their pound of flesh”, and that a political party filed a petition seeking relief that nobody should demolish anything anywhere in the country without following the law. He said no order is needed for such relief.
Intervening, Justice Bopanna said the matter should not be taken as adversarial, “about who has approached and what. Ultimately, rule of law has to prevail. So, let’s not get into who has approached”.
Salve, however, said “there is a reason why the person appearing becomes relevant”. He said “one of them (action against illegal construction) started in August 2020, and somebody is riding a wave saying this is a good chance for me to protect my property. That’s why, as the SG says, who has come to court becomes important.”
The bench sought to know if prior proceedings were held in the cases cited by the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind.
“No… but they are sought to be justified on the basis that they are illegal constructions, and in some cases, oral statements are made that notices were issued in the past. There is no material at all. In one instance, the home of the wife of the person who allegedly is an anti-social element, a home which she inherited… has been demolished. And statements are made by high political functionaries that bulldozers will be deployed against persons who take the law into their own hands,” Singh said.
🚨 Limited Time Offer | Express Premium with ad-lite for just Rs 2/ day 👉🏽 Click here to subscribe 🚨
The bench said, “We are also conscious that no demolition can take place without following the due process of law.”
Senior Advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan, also arguing against the demolitions, said, “After the demolition is publicised, they are coming out with the excuse that notice was given, it was pasted on their doors etc… a remarkable coincidence that this is done to persons who are otherwise accused in riots… there were statements from the highest functionaries of the state that bulldozers will be the manner of criminal justice.”
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi said there is a strong case of malafides. “How is it that only those persons whose names are there in the FIR are picked up and their constructions demolished?” he asked. Even in cases where a particular property is unauthorised, the civil court, he said, will tell the corporation (to) give the person some time to remove materials. “You are not going to come overnight with a bulldozer and just knock it (down),” he said.
