Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

A Supreme Court bench of Justices BR Gavai & PS Narasimha today refused to pass interim order(s) in the plea(s) against "Bulldozer" action in states across India. Instead, it put up the cases for hearing on August 10. It is the contention of an organisation claiming to be of Islamic Scholars from the Deobandi school that the demolitions target persons only from the muslim community after they are accused of rioting.

The bench orally expressed reservations about passing omnibus orders in issues which concern municipal procedural laws after Dushyant Dave, Senior Advocate told court that several newspapers had been reporting that demolitions were being carried out across the country.

Dave was appearing for the petitioner and he informed Court that there was mindless action, sans any application of Rule of Law, adding that it resembled "Jungle Raaj". He said that "things were indeed getting serious" and this was not advantageous from a societal perspective". 

"Why only those persons who are accused of rioting are the targets?," Dave said, also highlighting that several colonies and homes existed which were unauthorised, such as homes at Sainik Farms, Delhi but were left untouched.

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Government Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that all procedures in accordance with the existing municipal laws were being followed and that the demolition processes against illegal constructions had begun before the riots.

"There is no need to sensationalise this," said Mehta.

Dave at this juncture told court that there was a possibility that "other communities" may have been wrapped under the knuckles but this does not leave out the illegality of demolition processes of riots accused. The Solicitor General interjected, stating that "othering communities" was deprecable.

"There is no OTHER community, there are all communities," said the Law Officer

CU Singh, Senior Advocate told Court that there was indeed a "modus operandi" which was being effectuated by the government, one that was applied during Jehangirpuri Demolitions in Delhi and was reengineered wherever communal riots took place, i.e. demolishing homes of those who were accused of rioting.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve called the argument of Rule of Law being subjugated in demolition processes one with a "wobbly factual edifice". He said,

"Just because someone is an accused, their house will not be demolished?! I mean what kind of argument is that?"

In this molten of exchange, the bench proceeded to put up the cases on August 10 for a comprehensive hearing.

It is pertinent to note that the State of Uttar Pradesh has opposed the plea by the organisation named "Jamiat Ulama I Hind" stating, inter alia that it is an "attempt to obtain sweeping interim orders without the examination of the legality of the demolition actions taken by the Municipal/ Development Authorities as per procedure established by law by a competent court". 

With regard to the plea's challenging demolitions in Uttar Pradesh, the local authorities of Kanpur and Prayagraj had filed a response saying that the demolitions carried out by the Kanpur and Prayagraj Development Authority were strictly in compliance with the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

On the last date of hearing as well, the court had refused to intervene in Uttar Pradesh demolitions. 

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Uttar Pradesh Government had said, "This is Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, none of their property is demolished, no person has approached who's property has been demolished."

Case Title: Jamiat Ulama I Hind Vs. Union of India & other connected matters