Top Court refuses to pass interim direction staying demolitions across states

'Can't pass omnibus order stopping authorities from taking action'

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to pass an interim direction staying demolition of properties of accused involved in violent protests across various states.

The top court wondered how it could pass an omnibus order on demolitions if there's an illegal construction and also the corporation or the council is authorised to require action.

"What omnibus directions can we issue..Nobody can dispute that the rule of law must be followed. But can we pass an omnibus order? If we pass such an omnibus order, will we not prevent the authorities from taking action in accordance with law," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and P S Narasimha said.

The top court was hearing pleas filed by Muslim body Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind seeking directions to the Uttar Pradesh government and other states to confirm that no further demolition of properties of alleged accused in recent cases of violence is dispensed.

At the outset, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, said this matter is "extraordinarily" serious and submitted that he chanced on a report during a newspaper where someone was accused of murder in Assam and his house was demolished.

"We don't desire this culture. Lordships will should decide for once and every one. they need to act in accordance with law. they can not profit of municipal laws and demolish houses of somebody who is simply accused of crimes.

"This country cannot permit this. We are a society governed by the rule of law which is that the basic structure of the Constitution. It should be finally heard and disposed of," Dave said while seeking an interim stay direction on the demolitions.

The senior lawyer submitted there's no material to indicate that other unauthorised houses were acted against and there's a "pick and choose" against other communities.

Senior advocate C U Singh, also appearing for one in all the petitioners, said despite the establishment order in Delhi's Jahangirpuri, the identical process was followed in city after city.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said he has some objections with the locus of the petitioners.

"Replies are filed by authorities that the procedure was followed and notices were issued. The demolition process started much before alleged riots. Merely because you are taking part in riots doesn't offer you immunity from illegal constructions being demolished. Affected persons have already taken their remedy before various high courts.Let us not create a sensationalising hype unnecessarily," Mehta said.

He opposed Dave's submission, and said all communities are Indian. "We cannot have community-based PILs," he said.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said there's a strong argument on rule of law but the factual edifice could also be a touch "wobbly".

He said the apex court cannot pass an order that a house of an accused mustn't be demolished notwithstanding any municipal law.

The top court asked the parties to finish pleadings within the matter, and said it'll hear the plea filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind against demolitions on August 10.

On June 16, the apex court had stated that "everything should be fair" and authorities should strictly follow the due procedure under the law while giving the state government and its authorities three days to retort to pleas which alleged that the homes of these accused in last week's violence were illegally demolished.

The top court was hearing pleas filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind seeking directions to the state government to make sure that no further demolitions of properties of alleged accused of recent violence are distributed within the State.

The Muslim body had said in its plea that no demolition of properties be distributed without following due process of law and such exercise is completed only after adequate notice.

The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind had earlier filed the plea on the difficulty of demolition of buildings in Jahangirpuri area of the metropolis.

The fresh applications within the pending petition said that after the last hearing within the matter some new developments have taken place that needs the eye of this Court.