Uttarakhand High Court pulled up authorities for issuing a demolition notice to a rape accused without due process. The court warned against violating Supreme Court guidelines on property demolition.
The Uttarakhand High Court on Friday strongly criticized the district administration, municipal council, and police department after a 65-year-old man accused in a POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) case was issued a demolition notice.
This incident took place in Nainital, where the area around the accused’s shop saw violence and protests.
The case began when the mother of a 12-year-old girl brought her daughter to the police station on Wednesday evening. She filed a complaint saying that the accused, Usman, had allegedly raped the child on April 12.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court in POCSO Case: ‘No Amount of Compensation Can Undo Trauma’
After this news came out, protests started in the market area where Usman’s shop is located. Some shops and restaurants in that market were damaged by angry protestors.
Soon after, the municipal authorities issued a demolition notice to the accused. In response, Usman’s 60-year-old wife filed a petition in the Uttarakhand High Court through her lawyer, advocate Kartikey Hari Gupta. She said that after local media reported the rape case, she began getting threats and had to run away from her home for safety.
The High Court took the matter seriously and said that the Supreme Court’s orders must be followed while taking any demolition action.
The division bench, consisting of Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Ravindra Maithani, said,
“We are issuing contempt and taking it up seriously. You (municipal council) cannot violate a Supreme Court order; it was not passed aeons ago. Whoever it is, whatever it is, the Supreme Court has been very clear: if you want to demolish a house, what is the procedure?”
The municipal council’s lawyer, advocate J S Virk, informed the High Court that the demolition notice would now be withdrawn. The Supreme Court had earlier given clear guidelines on November 13 last year, saying that people’s homes and private properties cannot be demolished just because they are accused of a crime.
ALSO READ: “Disappointed”: Supreme Court Slams Kerala HC for Dropping POCSO Charges Against Teacher
The demolition notice given to Usman claimed that he had built his shop on Nagar Palika or forest land illegally. However, the wife of the accused argued in her petition that this notice was sent only after the rape accusation came out and protests began.
The state’s lawyer also told the court that similar notices were sent to many other people who had allegedly made illegal constructions. But the High Court was not satisfied with the actions of the police and other authorities.
Chief Justice G Narender directly addressed the police and said,
“Your incompetence leads to all these problems, and you want to cover it up. Shops belonging to everybody… why were they ransacked? It would not have happened had the police been vigilant. What action has been taken against the arsonists? We want answers.”
The situation got worse when lawyers in the district court refused to represent Usman, the accused. On Thursday, when Usman was brought to court, a group of lawyers clashed with the police at the court’s entrance.
Justice Ravindra Maithani asked the police,
“When the accused was presented at the court, at the court’s door, there was a scuffle with the lawyers; why did you permit it. Why didn’t you anticipate it?”
Chief Justice G Narender also questioned how it was allowed that no one was ready to represent the accused.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Pressing Minor’s Lips Without Sexual Intent Not POCSO Offence
He asked,
“How can anyone be prevented from representing the accused?”
The High Court made it clear that even if someone is accused of a serious crime, their legal rights must be protected and due process must be followed. It also reminded the authorities that the Supreme Court’s directions are to be respected by all.
Click Here to Read More Reports On POCSO
