Demolitions Can’t Be Retaliatory Measure: The Supreme Court has sought answers from the state government as well as the civic authorities of Prayagraj and Kanpur before resuming the matter on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court today issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government over the demolition of houses of those accused in the recent violence in the state, saying “demolition must be as per law, they cannot be vengeance”.
The Supreme Court has sought answers from the state government as well as the civic authorities of Prayagraj and Kanpur before resuming the matter on Tuesday. The judges said, “Everything should look fair… We expect the authorities to act only in accordance with the law. Ensure security so that no untoward incident takes place.”
But the court did not stay the demolition, the judges said: “We cannot stop the demolition. All we can say is go by the law.”
Demolitions Can’t Be Retaliatory Measure: An organization called Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind had approached the Supreme Court asking it to take action against the authorities for what they called “illegal” demolition of houses.
The petition also said that the court should ask the UP government to ensure that no further demolition takes place without following due process of law.
UP recently demolished properties of two BJP leaders accused of participating in violent protests against controversial remarks on Prophet Muhammad. The houses demolished in Kanpur, Prayagraj and Saharanpur belong to the accused of violence.
The petitioners told the Supreme Court that the demolition was “shocking and appalling”, alleging that the notices were served after the houses were demolished.
CU Singh, counsel for the petitioners, said, “Adequate notice is necessary. What is being done is unconstitutional and shocking. It is being done by targeting a community.”
Demolitions Can’t Be Retaliatory Measure: He said that as per the laws of UP, a notice of at least 15 to 40 days was required before any demolition could take place.
“Respondents (UP government) will get time for their objections. We must ensure their (affected parties) safety in the meantime. To be clear, they are also a part of the society, after all, when someone has a complaint, their Passes the right to address it,” Justice AS Bopanna said.
The UP government claimed that it has followed the law.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh administration, said, “Law is followed for destructions. Media unnecessarily associates demolition with political statements.”
Demolitions Can’t Be Retaliatory Measure: The petitioners expressed apprehension that more demolition may be carried out over the weekend and requested the Supreme Court for interim protection. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the UP government, said, “Petitioners rely on newspaper reports. We rely on official records.”
“If the house is built without following any law, they cannot say that they should not be touched,” argued Mehta. The petitions were based on “misunderstanding and politics”.
A vacation bench of Justices Bopanna and Vikram Nath took up the matter two days after some former judges and senior advocates wrote to Chief Justice of India NV Ramana asking them to look into the alleged incidents of illegal detention, house bulldozing and police crackdown. Requested. Those who are opposing the comment on the Prophet.
