In that order, the Court prohibited demolitions nationwide without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. Hearing a contempt petition, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them and ordered that the structure remain intact until further notice.
NEW DELHI: Today, 17th Feb, The Supreme Court issued a show cause notice to Uttar Pradesh government officials over the partial demolition of a mosque in Kushinagar, citing an alleged violation of its 13 November 2024 order.
ALSO READ: Atala Mosque Survey|| Jaunpur Court Set To Deliver Verdict Today, Dec 16
In that order, the Court had prohibited demolitions nationwide without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. Hearing a contempt petition, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them and ordered that the structure remain intact until further notice.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih has asked why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for allegedly violating the Court’s order dated November 13, 2024. The notice is returnable in two weeks.
The Court also directed, “Until further orders, there shall be no demolition of the structure in question.”
Background
The petitioners claimed that on February 9, 2025, authorities demolished the outer section and front portion of the Madni Masjid without issuing any prior demolition notice.
They argued that the structure was built on private land with due municipal sanction since 1999 and that any extra construction was minor and could have been legally compounded. The petitioners demanded a stay on further demolition, restoration of the demolished portion, and compensation.
During the hearing, Justice Gavai observed that the Supreme Court had previously disposed of similar contempt petitions related to its November 13 judgment. The Court had granted liberty to petitioners in such cases to approach jurisdictional High Courts.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, appearing for the petitioners, strongly argued that the case involved “egregious contempt“ of the Supreme Court’s directions. He emphasized that:
- No demolition notice was issued for the structure.
- The structure was on private land with absolute municipal sanction.
- A Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) had inspected the site and confirmed that the construction was legal.
- After the SDM’s favorable report, he was transferred, and soon after, authorities arrived with police personnel and bulldozers for demolition.
Ahmadi further highlighted that there had been no action on the structure for over two decades. However, a political leader’s complaint in December 2024, alleging that “Asia’s largest mosque would come up in the area”, triggered inspections and ultimately led to the demolition.
The senior advocate admitted that a “small part of the structure was found to be unauthorized“ during the inspection, but stated that it was “voluntarily removed by the petitioners.” Despite this, he argued, authorities still carried out the demolition, violating the Supreme Court’s prior judgment.
The Supreme Court’s order on November 13, 2024, had laid down clear guidelines for demolition procedures. The key directives included:
- “No demolition should be carried out without prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days time from the date of service, whichever is later.”
- “Designated authority shall give an opportunity of personal hearing to the aggrieved party. The minutes of such a hearing shall be recorded. The final order of authority shall contain contentions of noticee, the findings of the authority, and reasons, as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, and whether the whole construction is to be demolished. The order should specify why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available.”
- “After the orders of demolition are passed, the affected party needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of demolition before the appropriate forum.”
The Court had also warned that violation of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Additionally, any officer found guilty of unlawful demolition would be personally responsible for restoring the demolished structure and paying damages.
The order, however, clarified that these protections would not apply if the unauthorized construction was on public property such as roads, footpaths, railway land, or water bodies, or if a court had specifically ordered demolition.
The petitioners claimed that when they attempted minor renovation work on the Mehraab (arch) of the mosque, a local politician filed a complaint with the Chief Minister on December 17, 2024, alleging that “Asia’s largest mosque has been constructed on state land and the Muslim community has encroached upon the said land.”
Following the complaint, police and revenue authorities conducted inspections, but the SDM’s report confirmed that the mosque was legally constructed on Gata No. 208, which belonged to the petitioners, and there was no encroachment.
Despite this, Nagar Palika Hata issued a notice on December 21, 2024, ordering removal of alleged new construction, even though, according to the petitioners, no new construction was being carried out.
The petitioners challenged this notice before the High Court. On January 8, 2025, the High Court directed the municipal body to consider their objections within two weeks. The Court also granted interim protection against demolition for three weeks. However, despite the petitioners filing objections on January 7 and January 16, 2025, the authorities neither decided on the objections nor issued a demolition order.
Instead, the authorities allegedly pressured the petitioners by filing a false FIR against petitioner no.2 under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act on January 25, 2025.
ALSO READ: Mathura Shahi Idgah Row | Supreme Court Defers Hearing on Mosque Panel’s Plea to March
On February 9, 2025, without passing any decision on the petitioners’ objections, authorities “came with 4 JCBs (bulldozers) and demolished the masjid (outer area and front).”
The petitioners further alleged, “the administration has chosen Sunday 09.02.2025 to demolish the Madni Masjid, Hata, Kushinagar and have deployed huge Police Force of around 500 Police Personals, all the shops of Qasba Hata was closed and around 9 am the respondents have started demolishing the mosque and by the evening, they have destroyed the mosque from all the nook and corners. The mosque has been demolished from all the corners and has been turned into a dilapidated condition.”
The petitioners argued that even if a portion of the structure was beyond the sanctioned plan, it was “compoundable in nature.” They referred to the Supreme Court’s November 13 ruling, which required authorities to provide reasons why demolition was the only option instead of considering alternatives like compounding.
Furthermore, the petitioners stated that a Supreme Court advocate representing them had sent a legal notice on February 9, 2025, to the District Magistrate of Kushinagar, warning about contempt of Court and requesting an immediate halt to the demolition. However, this plea was ignored.
The contempt petition has been filed through Advocate-on-Record Abdul Qadir Abbasi.
Case Title:
AZMATUNNISA Versus VISHAL BHARDWAJ AND ORS., Diary No. 8034-2025
