"We Don't Want To Open A Pandora Box": SC While Dismissing Plea By NFIW Seeking Contempt Action For Demolition Drives In UP, Uttarakhand & Rajasthan

The Supreme Court, today, dismissed a petition alleging contempt of court in relation to property demolitions by authorities in Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. The petition was filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), affiliated to the Communist Party of India in a pending Writ Petition about the issue. 

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice P.K. Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted that the petitioner was neither directly nor indirectly related to the demolitions and said, "We don’t want to open a pandora's box."

The Bench made it clear that it would only hear those directly affected by the demolition of properties.

During the hearing, the Counsel for NFIW, claimed that properties in Haridwar, Jaipur, and Kanpur had been demolished in violation of the Supreme Court's previous order, which barred demolitions without its explicit permission. The Counsel cited news reports. He shared three instances, i.e. Jaipur, Haridwar, and Kanpur where the orders of the Apex Court were not followed.

The Counsel submitted, "Without the leave of this court, no demolition was to be carried out. There has been demolition carried out...There is a link of the video of the demolition is there. The next day of the FIR, the restaurant was demolished for allegedly having non-vegetarian mixed in vegetarian food. The day after the FIR, the restaurant was demolished."

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj appeared for the State of Uttar Pradesh. The ASG submitted that, in so far at UP is concerned, the petitioner is a third party, who is not aware of anything. "Based on some newspaper report he has filed it. What has been done is, there was some footpath encroachment that has been removed. Some newspaper has reported it and he has filed an application based on that," the ASG argued. 

The Counsel for the petitioner suggested the Court to take suo moto cognizance of the demolitions.

However, the Court said, "We are not inclined to entertain the contempt petition...we don't want to open a pandora of box. If, by violation of our order, somebody's structure is demolished, we will take care of that".

Furthermore, the Counsel submitted that very often the people who are suffering don't have access to the Court. 

"Don't say that. Please just don't say that," Justice Gavai said. 

The Court had earlier, in its September 17 order, in Jamiat Ulama-i Hind v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation had restrained authorities from carrying out demolitions until October 1 without the Court's consent. The order specified that the restraint would continue until the Court delivers a final ruling on the matter. However, the Court clarified that its ruling did not apply to unauthorised structures on public roads, footpaths, railway lines, or public places such as water bodies.

The Petition filed through AoR Pinky Behera stated, "That despite the categorical directions issued by this Hon’ble Court prohibiting State Authorities from carrying out demolitions the following incidents of punitive extra-judicial demolitions have been reported: a) 19.10.2024, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, the Haridwar district administration, under heavy security, demolished a mazar (mausoleum) in Mirpur village of Uttarakhand’s Bahadarabad; b) 20.10.2024, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Authorities demolished a portion of a building constructed illegally on land belonging to a temple allegedly by the father-son duo arrested for stabbing 10 RSS workers during a Sharad Purnima event on the temple premises three days back; c) 21.10.2024, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, a restaurant owned by Muslim man was demolished by the authorities after protest by Bajrang Dal who accused its owner of disguising his identity and serving non-veg food."

"..incidents of demolitions the Authorities have acted in gross contempt of the express stay of demolitions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, it is submitted that even if the concerned State Authorities were of the opinion that the structures were illegal, the said structures were not covered by the categories carved out by this Hon’ble Court as exceptions to the general prohibition on demolition imposed, viz. unauthorized structures in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies or cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law. Thus, in any case, the State Authorities were bound by the directions of this Hon’ble Court and could not have carried out the demolitions without seeking leave of this Hon’ble Court," the petition read. 

Cause Title: National Federation of Indian Women v. Rajesh Kumar Singh [Diary No. 49497/2024]