The Supreme Court did not stay further demolition of alleged illegal structures in the state, as sought by the Jamiat through a battery of experienced lawyers. However, a vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Justice AS Bopanna Vikram Nathi Yogi Adityanath firmly told the government that “demolition will not happen (in future) without following the process of law”.
“The court must come to the rescue of the citizens as ultimately the rule of law must prevail. The campaign against illegal structures and encroachments should not be seen as targeting a community.
It sought response from state and development authorities within three days. Prayagraj and Kanpur, where three incidents of demolition of illegal structures allegedly belonging to a riot accused were widely reported and cited as evidence of Jamiat targeting a particular community. The bench scheduled further hearing next week.
Senior advocates CU Singh, Huzefa Ahmadi and Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for Jamiat, said that there was a flood of destruction in the country. Uttar Pradesh The use of the bulldozers has been in blatant violation of due process of law, which mandates prior notice and sufficient time for victims to move appellate fora against demolition notices. “At any rate, even if the structures are illegal, shouldn’t the occupants get enough time to move their belongings? The Jamiat argued that it could not be an overnight covert operation in violation of the law. “This is being done in accordance with the publicly announced retaliation policy of the CM. It is shocking, unconstitutional, appalling and appalling. This did not happen during the dark days of the Emergency. This demolition of houses targeting members of a particular community, who have been booked for rioting, hooliganism and stone-pelting, must stop as the structures may be owned by their parents or relatives. ,
Refuting Jamiat’s claim, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta It was asked how the Jamiat would know the legal status of the constructions which were demolished. “Only an affected party can tell the court whether the construction of his house was legal, whether it was demolished without following due process of law, whether he was involved in stone-pelting, rioting or hooliganism, and whether the government targeted him just because he belonged to a particular community. ,
Mehta asked, “Can the Supreme Court, on the basis of unverified claims in a PIL and without any complaint by any of the aggrieved parties, pass an interim order that there should be rule of law in the country? Can it say that due process of law should be followed by any person without filing an affidavit alleging that the government did not follow it?
Senior advocate Harish Salve gave information about the ground situation on behalf of Prayagraj and Kanpur development authorities.
He said three demolitions were carried out, one in Prayagraj, a house belonging to riot accused Javed Mohammad alias Javed Pump and the other two in Kanpur. In Prayagraj, the person concerned was given notice about the illegal structure on May 10 and hearing on May 24, both before the clashes, he said, and asked how it could target a member of a particular community. .
Salve said in Prayagraj, the demolition notice was sent on May 25. The junior engineer in his report stated that the property was valuable, which meant that the aggrieved party had the means to challenge the demolition notice in a competent court. In one of the two incidents in Kanpur, an illegally constructed boundary wall was demolished by the authorities, while in the other case, demolition notices were sent till August 2020 and the property was sealed. Thereafter, an FIR was registered after the seal was broken, he said.
“It is a case of motivated reporting of incidents even though the authorities have followed due process of law. We will file an affidavit detailing each incident and how the due process of law was followed faithfully,” he said.