Today(30th Sept),The Supreme Court of India has ordered a “status quo” on ongoing evictions and demolitions in Assam’s Sonapur region following a contempt petition from residents claiming violations of the court’s interim order. The petition, submitted by 48 residents, seeks judicial relief against what they describe as illegal evictions by the Assam government.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(30th Sept), The Supreme Court of India has directed a “status quo” on the ongoing evictions and demolitions in the Sonapur region of Assam. This decision came after a Bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan issued a notice regarding a contempt of court petition filed by residents of Sonapur. The petition challenges the Assam government’s demolition drive, which the residents claim violates the Supreme Court’s interim order against bulldozer demolitions.
The contempt petition was submitted by 48 residents of Sonapur, located on the outskirts of Guwahati in the Kamrup Metro district, who are now seeking judicial relief against what they describe as illegal evictions.
Supreme Court Interim Order on Demolitions
The controversy over the demolition drive stems from a recent Supreme Court interim order that prohibits authorities from demolishing properties, particularly using bulldozers, without its explicit permission. This move has been referred to as a step to curb “bulldozer justice,” a term used to describe the demolition of properties of individuals suspected of criminal activities.
However, the Court had also provided clarification in its order, stating that –
“The interim order will not be applicable in situations where demolitions are necessary to eliminate unauthorized constructions in public areas.”
This has become a point of contention in the current situation in Sonapur, where many residents have been classified by local authorities as “illegal occupiers” or “encroachers” on tribal lands.
Petitioners’ Claims: Land Rights and Lack of Due Process
The residents of Sonapur, represented in court by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, argue that the demolition drive is not only unlawful but also arbitrary. The petition, filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, contends that the residents were not given proper notice or a fair hearing before their homes were marked for demolition. According to the plea, the affected residents claim that their homes have been in their families’ possession since the 1920s, predating the establishment of protected tribal belts in the region.
The petitioners assert that they hold legal rights over the land through a power of attorney. Furthermore, they argue that their residency has been recognized by the government in various ways, as they have been provided with utility facilities, ration cards, Aadhaar cards, and voter ID cards. These documents, they claim, validate their long-standing occupancy in the region.
Violation of High Court Orders and Red Stickers for Demolition
The residents also allege that the government is proceeding with the demolition drive in violation of a prior undertaking before the Gauhati High Court. In their submission, they pointed out that the state authorities had provided an undertaking, which was noted by the High Court, granting the residents interim protection from such actions. Despite this legal safeguard, the residents claim that their houses have been marked with red stickers for demolition.
“Nonetheless, the government has marked their residences with red stickers for demolition, which constitutes a violation of the law.”
– the plea submitted.
The petitioners also highlighted that these demolition plans have progressed without any legal declaration of their status as illegal encroachers, which they claim should have preceded any eviction or demolition.
Contempt of Court Petition Against Officials
Given the alleged breach of court orders, the residents have moved forward with a contempt of court petition. They argue that the state government officials, by planning and initiating the demolition drive, have violated the Court’s earlier directives.
“The residents have sought contempt of court proceedings against errant officials for their violation of court orders,”
-the plea stated.
The petitioners are now urging the Supreme Court to hold these officials accountable for their actions and to halt the eviction process immediately.
Three-Week Deadline for State Government Response
Upon hearing the plea, the Supreme Court Bench ordered the Assam state government to file its response to the contempt petition within a three-week period. In the interim, the Court’s directive to maintain the status quo provides temporary relief to the residents.
The Bench, while acknowledging the gravity of the situation, took a step towards ensuring that the residents’ concerns would be heard and addressed by the judiciary in the coming weeks.
“The Supreme Court has directed the State government to file its response within three weeks,”
-the Court stated.
Residents Vs. State Authorities
The conflict between the Sonapur residents and the state authorities reflects broader tensions around land rights, encroachments, and the use of force in dealing with alleged illegal occupiers in Assam. The region, particularly the Kamrup Metro district, has seen several cases where individuals have been classified as illegal encroachers on tribal land, leading to evictions and demolitions.
As the legal process unfolds, the residents hope that the Supreme Court will ultimately protect their homes and prevent the demolitions from continuing. For now, the Court’s order to maintain the status quo ensures that no further action will be taken until the state government has filed its official response.
The residents’ legal team, comprising advocates Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Sana Parveen, and Arijeet Baruah, have been instrumental in bringing this matter to the Supreme Court’s attention. The case is expected to gain further traction as the state government prepares its defense, and the Supreme Court reviews the contempt allegations.
In the meantime, the residents continue to assert their historical and legal claims over the land, hoping for a favorable resolution.
“They contend that their families have held the land since the 1920s, long before the establishment of protected tribal belts in the region.”
– the plea emphasized.
