NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a petition seeking contempt of court action against the Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Rajasthan authorities for allegedly violating its order halting demolition of properties of those accused of crimes.
“We don’t want to open a Pandora’s box. Let the persons who are affected by demolition come to the court,” a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai said, refusing to entertain the plea filed by a person who was not directly or indirectly related to the alleged demolition.
The refusal came after Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, representing the state of Uttar Pradesh, pointed out that the petitioner was a third party and not aware of the facts as it was only a footpath encroachment that was removed by the Kanpur authorities and that he moved court on the basis of media reports.
Amid bulldozer action against alleged illegal houses and shops of offenders in BJP-ruled states, the Bench had on September 17 ordered that no demolition of properties of persons accused of crimes can take place without its prior permission.
“Even if there’s one instance of illegal demolition, it’s against the ethos of the Constitution,” the top court had said, invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution (which empowers it to pass any orders to do complete justice) to halt “bulldozer justice”.
However, it had clarified that the order won’t apply to encroachments on public roads, footpaths, railway lines and water bodies.
The top court had said it would lay down pan-India guidelines for all citizens on the issue even as it clarified that it would not protect any unauthorised construction on roads, government land or forest.
On Thursday, the petitioner’s lawyer alleged that the authorities in Haridwar, Jaipur and Kanpur demolished properties in violation of the top court’s order that said no demolition could be carried out without its prior permission.
“The Supreme Court’s order was categorical that without the leave of this court, no demolition would be carried out,” the lawyer said, alleging that in one of these cases, the property was demolished immediately after an FIR was registered.
However, the Bench refused to entertain the plea, noting that the petitioner was not affected by the alleged action. As the petitioner’s lawyer said in two of the three cases, the affected persons were in jail, the Bench said their family members could move the court.