Supreme Court Refuses To Initiate Contempt Proceedings Over Demolition Of 500-Year Old Sikh Mutt Near Puri Jagannath Temple

A Bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar was not prompted to initiate contempt after noting that there was no “disobedience” of the Court’s order.

“Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the averments in the application, we see no reason to initiate any contempt proceedings. The present contempt proceedings stand dismissed”, the Court’s order read.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover appeared for the petitioners. During the course of today’s hearing, he argued that the demolition of the mutt was in violation of the Top Court’s 2019 judgement.

“Demolitions can go on but there must be preservation of the mutt”.

“Mr counsel, there is a substantial encroachment”, the Bench said.

“The Mutt was not supposed to be demolished”, Grover argued.

It is the petitioners’ case that in 2019, the Court passed an order recording that while clearing the area along the Jagannath Temple’s vicinity, the authorities would ensure that deities, samadhi of the mutt, its relics etc. would remain untouched and in their current place with regard to beautification of the place with Kalinga style of architecture.

“What is the contempt? Tell us”, the Bench said.

Grover reiterated his submission.

“There is no disobedience. Sorry, there is no contempt”, the Bench said.

Giving a bit of background, Grover said the mutt was visited by Guru Nanak himself, five centuries ago.

“They had given an undertaking by an agreement. A place which has been there for 500 years is being demolished. It is the place where Guru Nanak himself visited 500 years ago.”

“Sorry we do not want to initiate any contempt proceedings’, the bench affirmed.

“That’s the only way. How can I restore it? Grover asked rhetorically.

“We are not telling you to withdraw (the plea). We are dismissing it”, the Bench quickly responded.

“I have no other recourse. After your Lordships’ order if the demolition takes place…”, Grover tried to continue, only for the Court to say,

“Everything is done in the larger interest”.

With this, the Bench dismissed the plea.