Can Omnibus Orders Be Passed Against Demolitions? Supreme Court Asks In Jamiat Pleas Challenging "Bulldozer" Actions
While hearing PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to "bulldozer" action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally asked if it can pass omnibus orders restraining demolition of unauthorised constructions. The bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha...
While hearing PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to "bulldozer" action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally asked if it can pass omnibus orders restraining demolition of unauthorised constructions.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha orally observed,
"Rule of law has to be followed, no dispute. But can we pass an omnibus order. If under the Municipal law the construction is unauthorized, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities?" .
The Petitioners have alleged that the government is taking "selective action" against those accused in riots.
"Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused in a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by rule of law…", Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted for the Petitioners. Citing a report of Indian Express, Dave submitted that in Assam, the house of a person was demolished after he was accused in a crime. The senior counsel argued that police authorities are not resorting to demolition as a form of punishment.
Senior Advocate CU Singh, also appearing for Jamiat, alleged that despite the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in Jahangirpuri, the same modus operandi was followed in many other cities, including UP. "We have given numerous cases, where police officers announcing demolition and demolishing the houses of the accused," he said.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised a preliminary objection as to the locus of the Petitioner Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. He submitted that the individual affected parties have already approached the High Courts. The SG added that the petitioners are creating a "sensationalizing hype unnecessarily".
"Replies have been filed by authorities that procedure was followed and notices were issued. Process started much before riots."
Senior Counsel Harish Salve, also appearing for the State, argued that the Court cannot pass an order that a house should not be demolished merely because the individual involved is an accused in a case. He asked the petitioners to not go by newspaper reports.
Singh contended that there are numerous instances where the Police authorities announced demolition of the houses of the accused.
"The problem is the police authorities are announcing that the houses of accused will be demolished. The SP of Kanpur, the SP of Saharanpur, they are announcing," he argued.
Dave added that there is no material to show that other unauthorized houses were acted against. "There is a pick and choose against other community… The entire Sainik Farm is illegal. Nobody has touched it in 50 years. Look at the illegal farm houses in Delhi. No action taken. Selective action is taken," he said.
"There is no other community. Only Indian community", the SG retorted.
The matter is now listed for hearing on August 10.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has filed two PILs - one seeking a general declaration that demolition actions cannot be taken as a punitive measure against persons accused of committing offences. The second PIL was filed against the demolition actions carried out by North Delhi Municipal Corporation after the riots during Hanuman Jayanti processions.
After demolition actions were taken against some buildings in Kanpur and Prayagraj, Jamiat filed an application in its petition relating to Jahangirpuri, alleging that the UP authorities were targeting those accused of violence during protests against the remarks of Prophet Muhammed.
On June 16, 2022 the vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Vikram Nath had asked the Uttar Pradesh government not to carry out demolition activities except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It has also granted three days' time to the State, to demonstrate how the recent demolitions were in compliance with the procedural and municipal laws. "Action will only be in accordance with law," it said.
In response, the State of Uttar Prades submitted an affidavit that the recent demolitions carried out in Kanpur and Prayagraj were done by Local Development Authorities strictly in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
The State categorically denied that the demolitions were linked to riots and maintained that the process for initiated for violation of the building rules.
Case Title: Jamiat Ulama I Hind & Anr v UOI & Ors| WP(Crl) 162/2022
Click Here To Read/Download Order