SC grants UP govt three days to file affidavit in Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind filing
A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Vikram Nath have three days at UP State to file their affidavit in the latest “bulldozer” case.
The Holiday Bench was hearing a request filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, seeking instructions from the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that no further demolition is carried out in the State without following due process. .
The claims are made in its earlier petition against the demolition campaign in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri. On April 21, another chamber of the Supreme Court had issued an opinion and ordered the status quo against the demolition campaign launched by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) in the Jahangirpuri district of Delhi.
In this case, the claimant sought to bring a claim against those responsible for the demolished houses, allegedly in violation of the rule of law and municipal laws enacted by the state of Uttar Pradesh.
According to this report by Live Act“the relief in the claim filed through Barrister Kabir Dixit and Barrister Sarim Naved had also sought instructions from the State of Uttar Pradesh that no hasty action be taken in the district of Kanpur against the residential or commercial property of any defendant in criminal proceedings as an extra-legal punitive measure”.
Chander Uday Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that according to Section 27 of the UP Planning Act, at least 15 days’ notice must be given to the responsible person or landlord.
Singh said that after the violence in Kanpur, a number of people in authority said in the media that the property of the suspects/accused would be confiscated and demolished, including, according to him, the chief minister of the state who declared in the media “that the houses of the defendants would be razed using bulldozers”.
He said: “It’s appalling. We did not see that in this country, neither during the state of emergency nor in pre-independence India. Not only the person’s house, their parents’ houses, etc. are demolished. This cannot be tolerated in a Republic and in a country where the rule of law reigns.”
The State of UP, however, opposed the demands, mainly arguing that Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind did not locus standi in the matter. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that since there is an allegation of violation of the laws, an aggrieved party should come forward, stating that demolition action has been taken against them, without giving notice, as a vendetta. for their involvement in the riots.
To this, the Court replied: “We must be aware that people whose houses are demolished may not be able to approach the Court”.
However, Harish Salve, representing the government, pointed out that in Prayagraj, the notice was issued in May, well before the riots and subsequently, on May 25, the demolition order was passed.
He also pointed out that the said property is precious and therefore the petitioners are not the ones who could not go to court. He asked for three days to put the files under oath.
The state argued that a framework ordinance limiting demolitions in the state of UP should NOT be passed. The state’s argument was that since the case involves an individual whose home was demolished, the court should hear the state’s side and then render judgment. The state requested three days to file its affidavit showing that the notice was served within the legal time limits.
The panel agreed and gave the state three days to file its affidavit and case by Tuesday, June 21.
Read also : ‘Blasphemy’: How Himanta Biswa Sarma stopped violent protests from breaking out in Assam