SC declines to entertain contempt plea over demolition drives in three states
- In Reports
- 04:42 PM, Oct 24, 2024
- Myind Staff
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a petition accusing three state governments of contempt for violating its order that halted property demolitions. The court stated it would only consider petitions from individuals directly or indirectly impacted by the demolition activities, avoiding what it termed as "opening a Pandora’s box."
The petition raised objections to demolition operations conducted by the state governments of Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh in Haridwar, Jaipur, and Kanpur, respectively. The plea was presented before a bench consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, P.K. Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan, who declined to hear the case. The court emphasised that the petitioner did not have a direct or indirect connection to the affected properties and therefore was not eligible to file such a plea.
The court, however, made it clear that it would welcome cases brought by individuals who were personally affected by the demolitions. The petition had claimed that state authorities had acted in contempt by demolishing properties, contrary to the Supreme Court's earlier ruling that stated no demolitions could be conducted without the court's approval.
Earlier, on October 1, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict and extended the interim stay on all demolitions across the country unless specifically authorised by the court. This interim stay had been in place until October 1, pending further orders.
The top court assured that the final ruling would provide clear instructions that would apply across the board, irrespective of religious or community considerations. The court emphasised that public safety should always take precedence, and religious structures, whether temples or dargahs, should not obstruct public spaces.
Justice B.R. Gavai further clarified that any action against unauthorised constructions must be rooted in the law and should not be influenced by religious or cultural affiliations. The court promised to establish national guidelines for demolitions, emphasising that demolitions should not take place solely because an individual is accused or convicted in a case.
At the same time, the Supreme Court specified that these guidelines would not apply to unauthorised structures on public roads, railways, footpaths, or other public spaces such as water bodies.
Comments