[Bulldozer Action] “Don’t Want To Open Pandora Box”: SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Contempt Of Demolition Order By 3 States

The Supreme Court Today (Oct 24) refused to entertain a plea alleging contempt of its order on demolition of properties by the authorities in Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai and comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan said it was not inclined to entertain the plea filed by the petitioner who was not directly or indirectly related to the alleged act. The court said it will hear those affected by the demolition of properties.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Thursday, declined to consider a plea that alleged contempt of its previous orders regarding the demolition of properties in Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh.

A bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, expressed their disinclination to hear the petition filed by an individual who was neither directly nor indirectly linked to the alleged demolition activities.

In response to the plea, the bench stated,

“We don’t want to open a pandora box,”

-signaling their reluctance to initiate a wide-ranging examination of the issue without the involvement of affected parties.

The court made it clear that it would instead focus on hearing petitions from those who were directly impacted by the property demolitions. The petitioner in this case had claimed that authorities in Haridwar, Jaipur, and Kanpur had conducted demolitions in defiance of the Supreme Court’s previous orders.

These orders had emphasized that demolitions should not take place without the court’s explicit permission.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on a series of petitions that raised concerns about the demolition of properties, including those linked to individuals accused of crimes, across various states.

In a key decision dated September 17, the court had issued an order prohibiting any demolitions without its prior approval until October 1, as it continued to deliberate on the matter.

However, the court had provided a clarification in this ruling, stating-

“Prohibition on demolitions would not extend to unauthorized structures on public roads, footpaths, railway lines or public places like water bodies and similar areas.”

In conclusion, the court’s decision to refrain from entertaining the current plea highlights its cautious approach in handling matters where broader implications, like demolitions, affect multiple parties and locations.

The court emphasized its commitment to hearing cases from those directly impacted by such actions rather than opening the doors to petitions from unrelated individuals.

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bulldozer Actions

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES