[Bulldozer Action] "Serious Suppression Of Facts": SG Mehta Tells Supreme Court In Petition Against Gir Somnath Demolitions

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Yesterday (Oct 25) informed a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan that the Auliye-e-Deen Committee had withheld crucial information in its petition challenging the demolition of nine Muslim religious sites, graveyards, and hutments, some of which were protected ancient monuments in Gir Somnath, Gujarat. He noted that the removal of encroachments on the same land began five months ago and pointed out that the court was not told that similar actions, including the demolition of several temples, had been ongoing since 2020.

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

[Bulldozer Action] "Serious Suppression Of Facts": SG Mehta Tells Supreme Court in Petition Against Gir Somnath Demolitions

NEW DELHI: In a high-stakes legal development, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed a Supreme Court bench yesterday of alleged “serious suppression of facts” by the Auliya-e-Deen Committee, which recently approached the court in a plea opposing the demolition of nine historic Muslim religious sites, including places of worship, graveyards, and hutments.

Several of these sites in Gir Somnath, Gujarat, are reportedly classified as protected ancient monuments.

The Solicitor General, addressing the bench led by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan, detailed the background of the demolition actions.

“It started 5 months back, in the same survey number we started removing encroachments…Nobody has told court that this is pending from 2020 and MANY TEMPLES HAVE ALSO BEEN DEMOLISHED.”

This statement highlights the broader context of the demolition drive, which reportedly targeted various structures without discrimination based on religious affiliation, contrary to the claims of the Auliya-e-Deen Committee.

The Auliya-e-Deen Committee’s petition, filed in the Supreme Court of India, challenges the legality of demolishing over nine Muslim religious sites, including graves and structures believed to have been established over a century ago on lands in Prabhas Patan, District Gir Somnath, formerly part of the State of Junagadh.

The Committee argues that these demolitions were carried out unilaterally, without proper notice or opportunity for affected parties to protect or relocate their belongings.

According to submissions in the court, representatives of the petitioner committee were allegedly detained at the Collector’s office on September 27, 2024. Just a day later, on September 28, 2024, at 5 AM, the demolitions proceeded, affecting the religious sites, graves, and nearby hutments.

The Committee claims that those impacted were not permitted to retrieve personal or sacred items, including “religious scriptures and holy books,” before the demolitions took place.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court issued an interim measure regarding the possession of the disputed land. As per the court’s directive,

“till the next date, the possession of said land would be with only the government,”

-assured by SG Mehta.

However, the bench did not concede to the Committee’s request for a “status quo” order. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the Committee, appealed to the court, arguing that

“overnight they have proceeded and demolished the structures…please let status quo be maintained…this is registered as a waqf, there are panchnama proceedings.”

In a related matter earlier this month, the Supreme Court had similarly declined a stay request on demolitions near the Somnath temple in Gujarat. This petition was submitted by the Summast Patni Muslim Jamat, which raised concerns over the continued demolition of religious and historic structures in the region.

A notable development in this area came on September 17, when the Supreme Court issued an interim order barring further demolitions without prior permission. The court emphasized that properties could not be demolished solely based on accusations against the owners or occupants.

This interim relief extended to cases involving individuals accused of criminal activities, underscoring the importance of judicial oversight in property-related actions tied to criminal allegations.

Following this interim directive, the Supreme Court extended the suspension of demolitions as it deliberates on pleas requesting structured guidelines against property demolitions in criminal cases. This issue traces back to an initial petition by Jamiat Ulema-I-Hind following the controversial demolitions in Jahangirpuri, where the organization called upon the Supreme Court to restrain federal and state authorities from indiscriminately demolishing properties linked to accused individuals.

The Jamiat argued that such punitive demolitions violate the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens and potentially erode the integrity of the judicial process.

They further asserted that-