A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan recorded the submission made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state. Consequently, the court declined to issue an interim status quo order as requested by the counsel representing the Muslim parties.
New Delhi, Oct 25: The Gujarat government informed the Supreme Court on Friday(25th Oct) that the land where the alleged ‘illegal’ demolition of Muslim religious structures took place in Gir Somnath will remain under its possession and not be allocated to any third party.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan recorded the submission made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state. Consequently, the court declined to issue an interim status quo order as requested by the counsel representing the Muslim parties.
“The Solicitor General assures that until further orders, the land will remain with the government and will not be allotted to third parties. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to pass any interim order,”
the bench noted.
Plea Against Gujarat HC’s Rejection of Status Quo
The hearing involved a plea challenging a Gujarat High Court decision, which had refused to order a status quo on the demolition of Muslim religious structures. The Supreme Court is also handling a separate contempt plea accusing the Gujarat Government of violating its previous stay on demolitions. Petitioners claim that demolitions were carried out without obtaining the court’s prior approval, despite an interim stay issued on September 17.
The apex court had earlier ruled that the demolition of properties, including those belonging to individuals accused of crimes, cannot proceed without its explicit permission. The matter is scheduled for a further hearing on November 11, along with a fresh plea from the Auliya-e-Deen Committee challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision.
Allegations of Selective Demolitions and Encroachment
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Auliya-e-Deen Committee from Junagadh, argued that religious structures belonging to the Muslim community were demolished, while temples on the same government land were spared. He claimed that even protected monuments were razed under the pretext that they were located near a water body—the Arabian Sea.
In response, Solicitor General Mehta defended the demolitions, asserting that only encroachments on government land were removed and none of the demolished structures had legal protection.
The bench reassured the petitioners that it could order restoration if necessary but declined to grant a status quo.
Contempt Concerns Over Alleged Unauthorized Demolitions
Senior advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing another petitioner, raised concerns about demolitions carried out on legally recognized Wakf land. He alleged that the authorities acted overnight and proceeded with the demolitions on a Saturday while the case was still pending.
Ahmadi requested a status quo order, expressing fear that the government might transfer the land to third parties. However, the bench noted that since the state had assured it would retain the land, there was no immediate need for such an order.
SC’s Warning on Restoring Structures if Contempt Found
Earlier, on October 4, the Supreme Court cautioned Gujarat authorities that it could order the restoration of demolished structures if it found them in contempt of the September 17 order. Despite this warning, the court refused to halt the demolition drive near Somnath temple.
The demolition drive, carried out on September 28, reportedly cleared encroachments on 15 hectares of government land near the temple, valued at approximately Rs 60 crore. Authorities stated that both religious structures and concrete houses were removed during the operation.
On October 1, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on petitions alleging that properties, including those belonging to crime suspects, were being arbitrarily demolished across multiple states. It also announced its intention to frame pan-India guidelines for such demolitions. Until the guidelines are finalized, the court’s September 17 order will remain in effect.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
