However, the Supreme Court has not ordered UP to stop the demolition.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today notified the government of Uttar Pradesh of the demolitions of homes belonging to those accused of recent violence in the state, saying: “Demolition must be in accordance with the law, they cannot be retaliation”.
The Supreme Court has asked for answers from the state government and civil authorities of Prayagraj and Kanpur before rehearing the case next Tuesday. “Everything has to look fair… we expect the authorities to act only in accordance with the law. Ensure security so that nothing untoward happens,” the judges said.
But the court did not suspend the demolition, with the judges saying: “We cannot delay the demolition. We can say: go in accordance with the law.”
An organization called Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had approached the Supreme Court, asking it to take action against officials responsible for what they called “illegal” house demolitions.
The petition also said the court should ask the UP government to ensure that no other vandalism occurs without due process of law.
UP had recently demolished properties of those accused of taking part in violent protests against the controversial comments about the Prophet Mohammed by two BJP leaders. Houses demolished in Kanpur, Prayagraj and Saharanpur were among the violence accused.
The vandalism was “shocking and horrific,” petitioners told the Supreme Court, claiming notices were given after houses were demolished.
“Adequate notifications are a must. What is being done is unconstitutional and shocking. It is being done by attacking a community,” said CU Singh, lawyer for the petitioners.
He said at least 15 to 40 days’ notice was a must before any demolition, under UP’s laws.
“The respondents (government UP) are given time for their objections. In the meantime, we have to take care of their (parties involved) safety. Let’s be clear, they are also part of society, in the end, if someone has a complaint, they have they have a right to have it treated,” said judge AS Bopanna.
The UP government claimed it followed the law.
“The proper course of action is followed for demolition. The media unnecessarily links the demolition to political statements,” says senior lawyer Harish Salve, advocating for the UP government.
The petitioners expressed fears that more demolition could be carried out over the weekend and sought interim protection from the Supreme Court. “Applicants rely on newspaper reports. We rely on official documents,” said Attorney General Tushar Mehta, who represents the UP government.
“If the house is built without following any laws, they can’t say they shouldn’t even be touched,” argued Mr Mehta, adding that the petitions were based on “misconceptions and politics”.
The holiday bench of Judges Bopanna and Vikram Nath took up the case two days after some former judges and prominent lawyers wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India NV Ramana asking him to take note of the alleged incidents of illegal detention, the bulldozing of houses and police crackdown on those protesting the remarks about the Prophet.
