The petitioner against arbitrary and selective “bulldozer” action in states like UP and MP drew the attention of the apex court towards the misuse of the provisions law.
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — While hearing the PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to “bulldozer” action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots, the Supreme Court, on Tuesday, orally asked if it can pass “omnibus” orders restraining demolition of unauthorised constructions.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha orally observed, “Rule of law has to be followed, no dispute. But can we pass an omnibus order. If under the Municipal law the construction is unauthorised, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities?”
Arbitrary Justice
Reacting to court hearing, the petitioner and the President of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind Maulana Mahmood Madani said that the manner in which arbitrary justice is being delivered by the government for an alleged crime that is not proven in the court is against justice itself. He said he has approached the court to uphold the constitution of the country and its rule.
He maintained that houses are built or demolished. It is not a big concern; our prime concern is that the Constitution and its sovereignty do not collapse. And our struggle for this has been going on for a long time and will continue (Insha’Allah).
On Wednesdy, on behalf of Maulana Madani, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted that the government is taking “selective action” against those accused in riots. “Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused in a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by rule of law…”,. Citing a report of Indian Express, Dave submitted that in Assam, the house of a person was demolished after he was accused in a crime. The senior counsel argued that police authorities are resorting to demolition as a form of punishment.
Status Quo Order
Senior Advocate CU Singh, also appearing for the Jamiat, alleged that despite the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in Jahangirpuri, the same modus operandi was followed in many other cities, including UP. “We have given numerous cases, where police officers announcing demolition and are demolishing the houses of the accused,” he said.
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised a preliminary objection as to the locus of the Petitioner Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. He submitted that the individual affected parties have already approached the High Courts. The SG added that the petitioners are creating a “sensationalising hype unnecessarily”.
“Replies have been filed by authorities that procedure was followed and notices were issued. Process started much before riots.”
Senior Counsel Harish Salve, also appearing for the State, argued that the Court cannot pass an order that a house should not be demolished merely because the individual involved is an accused in a case. He asked the petitioners to not go by newspaper reports.
Singh contended that there are numerous instances where the police authorities announced demolition of the houses of the accused.
The problem
“The problem is the police authorities are announcing that the houses of accused will be demolished. The SP of Kanpur, the SP of Saharanpur, they are announcing,” he argued.
Dave added that there is no material to show that other unauthorised houses were acted against. “There is a pick and choose against other community… The entire Sainik Farm is illegal. Nobody has touched it in 50 years. Look at the illegal farm houses in Delhi. No action taken. Selective action is taken,” he said.
“There is no other community. Only Indian community”, the SG retorted. The matter is now listed for hearing on August 10.
