The Supreme Court on Friday (20th Dec) addressed a plea alleging illegal construction near Uttarakhand’s Rajaji National Park, questioning its legitimacy. If violations are found, demolition may occur; otherwise, a penalty may be imposed. The court noted concerns about road construction breaching wildlife protection laws, emphasizing the need for compliance and accountability in environmental matters.
The Management Committee of the 180-year-old Noori Jama Masjid in Fatehpur has moved the Allahabad High Court challenging the Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department’s plan to demolish a significant portion of the mosque for road widening. The plea has sought the High Court’s urgent intervention to halt the demolition of Noori Jama Masjid and to secure its recognition and protection as a heritage site.
Former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman Yesterday (Dec 5) recounted how the political heavyweights of the Bharata Janata Party (BJP) accused of conspiring to orchestrate the demolition of Babri Masjid mosque in 1992, were acquitted by the trial court despite Supreme Court’s interventions. He narrated how he, as a Supreme Court judge, had passed orders restarting the trial which lay dormant for nearly 25 years.
Today, On 13th November, the Supreme Court criticized the practice of “bulldozer justice,” highlighting the negative impact on vulnerable families, particularly women and children. The Court established guidelines mandating due process before demolitions, stressing that homes symbolize significant socio-economic aspirations and cannot be eliminated based solely on accusations.
In a ruling on Wednesday(13th Nov), the Supreme Court emphasized that the Executive cannot replace the Judiciary and the law should not prejudge an accused’s guilt, notably in response to petitions against “bulldozer actions” in which the properties of alleged offenders are demolished by state authorities.
Today, On 6th November, the Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh for unlawfully demolishing a house in 2019, ordering Rs 25 lakh in compensation to the homeowner. The court emphasized the need for lawful procedures in property demolition and directed an investigation into the involved officials, reinforcing citizens’ rights against arbitrary state actions.
![[Bulldozer Action] "Don't Want To Open Pandora Box": SC Refuses To Entertain Plea Alleging Contempt Of Demolition Order By 3 States](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/bulldozer-2.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Today (Oct 24) refused to entertain a plea alleging contempt of its order on demolition of properties by the authorities in Uttarakhand, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. A bench headed by Justice B R Gavai and comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan said it was not inclined to entertain the plea filed by the petitioner who was not directly or indirectly related to the alleged act. The court said it will hear those affected by the demolition of properties.
![[Bahraich Violence] "Is State Misunderstood Intent of Previous Order on Demolition Notices?": Allahabad HC Slams UP Govt. For not Filing Response](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-2-6.png?resize=447%2C251&ssl=1)
A special bench of the High Court temporarily stayed the demolition of allegedly illegal structures in Bahraich, providing the accused 15 days to respond to the notices. The court emphasized the need for clarity in construction authorizations and directed state authorities to consider responses carefully before making decisions. The next hearing is set for October 23.
Three individuals linked to the Bahraich violence have sought urgent Supreme Court intervention against the demolition of their homes. They allege the demolition is punitive, citing short notice and misuse of municipal laws. The incident followed communal clashes during a Durga idol procession, leading to widespread violence and arrests.
The Gujarat government defended its demolition activities in Gir Somnath before the Supreme Court, asserting the need to remove illegal encroachments on public land. In response to a legal challenge, the government emphasized adherence to legal procedures, while the petitioner accused authorities of targeting Muslim sites unlawfully. The case was adjourned for further review.