SC Declines Emergency Relief on Bareilly Demolitions; Petitioners Told to Move HC
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
In a petition raising allegations of targeted action by the Uttar Pradesh authorities, the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to stay the demolition of two houses belonging to Bareilly residents, but granted limited interim protection by directing that status quo be maintained for one week. The Court firmly advised the petitioners to approach the Allahabad High Court as the appropriate forum for relief.
“By failing to adhere to the principles of the Constitution and flouting the established legal framework, the respondents are perpetuating a cycle of injustice and hardship for those who are most vulnerable. It is pertinent to mention that the Constitution of India is a sacrosanct document that was meticulously crafted to ensure the protection and preservation of the rights and liberties of every citizen.” Said the petition
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sanjeev Mehta heard the plea filed under Article 32 by two residents who alleged that their homes—and an adjoining banquet hall—were being demolished without notice and in complete disregard of due process. Senior Advocate Rauf Rahim, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the demolition drive was part of a “targeted action” initiated in the aftermath of violent clashes that broke out on September 26, following a sit-in protest called by Islamic cleric and Ittehad-e-Millat Council chief Tauqeer Raza Khan over derogatory remarks linked to the “I Love Mohammed” posters.
“That whether the structures on a private property are unauthorized, the victims being holders/owners of the structures cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law inasmuch as if they are dispossessed without following due process of law, their rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is being be violated. It is further submitted that that the victims of illegal demolitions of their structures on the private land cannot be deprived of their structures in violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, they are entitled to compensation/ rehabilitation for the losses suffered without no fault of them.”
Rahim argued that the conduct of the authorities was in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s November 13 order, which laid down pan-India guidelines mandating a prior show-cause notice and a minimum 15-day period to respond before any demolition could be carried out. He contended that proceeding with demolition despite these guidelines amounted to contempt of court.
“In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue certain directions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before an appropriate forum.” The Judgement delivered by Justice B.R Gavai said
Highlighting the urgency, the counsel informed the Bench that one of the petitioners was a 70-year-old cardiac patient who had recently undergone surgery, and that a substantial portion of the house had already been razed. “If we go to the High Court, it will take nearly ten days to secure an urgent hearing. In that period, the demolition will be completed and cause irreparable harm,” Rahim submitted, urging the Court to intervene: “Your powers are enormous—please protect them in the meantime.”
However, the Bench questioned the maintainability of the Article 32 plea at this stage. “Why have you not approached the Allahabad High Court? Why come here under Article 32?” Justice Nath asked, reiterating the Court’s reluctance to sidestep the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.
Despite this, on the counsel’s persistent plea for minimal protection, the Court agreed to grant temporary relief, directing that status quo be maintained for one week, during which time the petitioners may avail the proper remedies before the Allahabad High Court.
The matter underscores the continuing judicial scrutiny of demolition actions undertaken by State authorities, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent nationwide guidelines aimed at ensuring due process, non-discrimination, and procedural fairness in such measures.
