'Let Affected Parties Come' : Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain NGO's Plea Alleging Violation Of Order Staying Demolitions
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a public interest litigation initiated by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) alleging contempt by certain state authorities of the Court's interim order staying demolitions without permission.A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan declined to entertain the plea, noting that it was filed by a party...
The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a public interest litigation initiated by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) alleging contempt by certain state authorities of the Court's interim order staying demolitions without permission.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and KV Viswanathan declined to entertain the plea, noting that it was filed by a party not directly or indirectly affected by the alleged acts. "We do not wish to open a Pandora's box", orally remarked Justice Gavai.
The order was dictated thus: "In the facts of the present case, and particularly at the instance of the present applicants who are not directly or indirectly concerned with the alleged acts, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition".
The counsel for NFIW and argued that since October 1, when the court extended its stay on demolition actions without prior permission, 3 incidents have taken place in Uttar Pradesh (Kanpur), Uttarakhand (Haridwar) and Rajasthan (Jaipur) in violation of the court's order. Taking the court through reports covering the incidents, the petitioner highlighted that the UP incident related to the case where a restaurant was demolished after allegations were levelled against it regarding mixing of non-veg food with veg food.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for UP government, submitted that NFIW is a third-party that filed the PIL based on newspaper reports. The ASG further said that the alleged incident pertains to removal of encroachment on footpath.
Countering the objection, the counsel averred that NFIW was only bringing the instances to the notice of the Court, which can take suo motu cognizance of the facts. He further defended NFIW's locus saying that persons affected by two of the alleged incidents are in jail.
Not finding weight in NFIW's argument, Justice Gavai said, "Their family can come...somebody who is from that place can come...we can appreciate a PIL from a litigant coming from Haridwar, who has atleast some facts within his knowledge...otherwise, only on the basis of newspaper reports, we will be opening a [Pandora's box]".
In response, the counsel pointed out how journalists are suffering these days to bring incidents such as the alleged ones to public knowledge. Unconvinced, Justice Gavai replied, "Let the journalists come before the court, we will examine".
At this point, the petitioner urged that people who are suffering often don't have access to the court and denying the petition on the ground of NFIW being a "third-party" may act as an embargo on other persons (not directly roped in, but belonging to the affected area) approaching it.
Objecting to the submission regarding non-access to Courts, Justice Gavai said, "Don't say that. Please don't say that. There are public-spirited citizens everywhere now."
On the issue of locus, the judge added, "Let persons who have suffered by that demolition come before the court...if inspite of our orders, somebody's structure is demolished, we will take care of that. You are not directly affected...If somebody genuinely comes, we will consider it".
The 3 Incidents Assailed By NFIW
NFIW filed the present plea bringing forth 3 incidents stated to have occurred across 3 different states. These were mentioned in the petition as follows:
- 19.10.2024, Haridwar, Uttarakhand: The Haridwar district administration, under heavy security, demolished a mazar (mausoleum) in Mirpur village of Uttarakhand's Bahadarabad;
- 20.10.2024, Jaipur, Rajasthan: Authorities demolished a portion of a building constructed illegally on land belonging to a temple allegedly by the father-son duo arrested for stabbing 10 RSS workers during a Sharad Purnima event on the temple premises three days back.
- 21.10.2024, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh: A restaurant owned by Muslim man was demolished by the authorities after protest by Bajrang Dal who accused its owner of disguising his identity and serving non-veg food.
It was claimed that the state authorities were bound by the directions of the Court and could not have carried out the demolitions without seeking its leave.
Background
On September 17, the Supreme Court, invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, passed an interim order to the effect that no demolition shall take place in the country without its permission (except when there is encroachment on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or waterbodies).
This order came during the hearing of a batch of pleas assailing demolition actions taken/proposed to be taken by state authorities across the country, as a punitive measure, against houses of persons accused of crimes.
While the matter was being heard, the Court unequivocally expressed that house of a person can't be demolished merely because he is accused in a crime. On October 1, reserving orders in the matter, the court extended the stay imposed by it on demolitions (without prior permission) until further orders.
Case Title: NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDIAN WOMEN Versus RAKESH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS., Diary No. 49497-2024