All Communities Are Indian Communities: Tushar Mehta Objects To Dushyant Dave's Remark About 'Other Community'

The Supreme Court today adjourned the batch of cases challenging the demolition drives conducted in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh to August 10. The Court directed that the pleadings be completed by August 8.

During the short hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh objected to the remarks of Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the Petitioner in one case that the demolition drive targeted one particular community and that "there may be some houses of other community that may have been demolished".

Tushar Mehta said that "there is no other community, all communities are Indian communities". Mehta added that there are community-based PILs now.

The cases were listed before the Bench comprising of Justice B R. Gavai and Justice P. S. Narasimha.

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave told the Court that similar actions are being taken in other parts of the Country. He cited the example of the demolition of the house of a murder case accused in Assam. He relied upon a newspaper report for the purpose.

Senior Advocate Chander Uday Singh appearing for the Petitioners said that the officers had told those whose houses were demolished that the action was being taken due to their participation in riots.

The Bench said that "we cant pass omnibus orders". "If under municipal laws the construction is unauthorised, can we prevent the authorities from taking action?", the Bench asked.

To the submission that the house of a murder accused was demolished in Assam, Mehta said that we don't know the facts.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve said, "There is a powerful argument on rule of law, but the factual edifice may be wobbly. There is no dispute that law must be applied even handily. But can an order be passed that once a person is an accused, his house cant be demolished?

The Vacation Bench comprising of Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice Vikram Nath although on an earlier date of hearing refused to pass any interim order in the matter stating that, "we cannot stay all the demolitions but we can ask that the demolition be done in accordance with law", they had asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to file a reply in the petition filed against the demolition drive happening in Prayagraj and Kanpur Districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Senior Advocate C. U. Singh appearing for the petitioner organisation Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind had submitted that statements are being made by Senior Officials that the houses of the people involved in communal violence will be demolished. It was also submitted before the Bench that notices were not given to the people

The UP Government had filed a detailed reply and produced the notices issued and ordered passed prior to the demolition of houses of individuals whose cases were cited by the Petitioner. The affidavit stated that the demolitions have been carried out by the Local Development Authorities, as per law as part of their routine effort against unauthorised/illegal constructions and encroachments. The affidavit file by UP also stated that the constructions that were demolished were illegal and raised a point that none of the affected parties had approached the Court.

Jamiat had through a new application sought a writ of mandamus to the Union of India and the State Government of Uttar Pradesh that no lasting precipitative action is taken against any accused in any criminal proceeding. Jamiat had in its affidavit referred to the protest and the ensuing scuffle that happened in Kanpur District of Uttar Pradesh and stated that several persons of authority including the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh have given statements in the media that the houses and properties of the perpetrators would be razed using bulldozers.