Today, On 4th December, The Supreme Court granted one-week interim protection to petitioners whose properties in Uttar Pradesh were facing demolition, directing authorities to maintain the present status. The order provides temporary relief while the Court examines the concerns raised over the demolition proceedings.
The Supreme Court provided interim protection for one week to two petitioners whose properties in Uttar Pradesh are facing demolition. The court directed that the current state of affairs be maintained during this period.
Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta urged the petitioners who reported that partial demolitions of their residential or marriage hall properties had already occurred to approach the Allahabad High Court for a suitable order.
Also Read: SHOCKING!! Woman Lawyer Creates Ruckus in Supreme Court CJI’s Courtroom, Escorted Out
The bench stated,
“We grant interim protection for a period of one week from today as status quo would be maintained by the parties,”
They emphasized that this interim relief would not influence the high court’s consideration of the petition or the plea for a stay on its merits.
During the hearing, the bench queried the petitioners’ counsel as to why they initiated their appeal in the Supreme Court instead of first approaching the Allahabad High Court. The counsel responded by referencing prior judgments addressing “bulldozer justice.”
The bench replied,
“The court has already given a detailed judgement. Then approach the high court and take benefit of that judgement. What is this? Why should you come in 32 every time?”
They noted that the Allahabad High Court can also address urgent issues, urging the counsel to make a mention there instead of seeking protection for an extended period.
The counsel maintained that the Supreme Court’s powers are significant and that it has previously entertained similar cases.
The bench remarked,
“We can entertain all the matters before this court, and 226 will be made redundant.”
Addressing concerns regarding one of the petitioners being a 75-year-old man who had not been given notice, the bench indicated that these points could be presented to the high court. The counsel claimed that authorities were prepared to demolish the property imminently.
In response, the bench said,
“We will give protection for a week. You approach the high court and make a mention.”
They reiterated that demolition cases are generally heard on the day they are mentioned in the high court.
Ultimately, the bench declined to accept the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, allowing the petitioners the freedom to approach the high court under Article 226. It also permitted them to request an urgent hearing based on the ongoing demolition efforts and the fact that partial demolition had already taken place.
The counsel argued that the authorities’ actions could be seen as contempt of the Supreme Court’s existing order concerning demolitions.
The bench advised,
“You file a contempt petition if you want.”
In a notable decision rendered in November of the previous year, the Supreme Court established nationwide guidelines, stating that property demolitions should not occur without prior notice and that affected individuals should have 15 days to respond.
The court asserted that the executive cannot wield judicial authority to punish citizens through property demolitions without adhering to due process, deeming such actions “high-handed and arbitrary” that must be addressed firmly.
The court’s directions clarified that these guidelines would not apply to unauthorized structures in public places, nor in scenarios where a court order for demolition exists.