UP Demolition: Supreme Court Adjourns Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind's Plea To July 13
The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the application filed by Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind alleging that the authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh had resorted to demolition of properties as a punitive measure for protesting against the remarks on Prophet Muhammad.
This was after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, submitted that the petitioner has filed a rejoinder only yesterday, with new facts. He also informed the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala that the affected party has approached the Allahabad High Court and has expressed her wish to pursue her own case.
As the counsel appearing for the applicant, Nitya Ramakrishnan, did not oppose the SG's request, the Bench posted the matter for July 13.
The application was filed by the petitioner in an earlier petition filed by it challenging the demolitions carried out by the North Delhi Municipal Corporations in Jahangirpuri area. The petitioner had alleged that the demolitions were a form of "extra judicial punishment" against person accused of rioting during the Hanuman Jayanti.
On June 16, 2022 the vacation bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Vikram Nath had asked the Uttar Pradesh government not to carry out demolition activities except in accordance with the procedure established by law. It has also granted three days' time to the State, to demonstrate how the recent demolitions were in compliance with the procedural and municipal laws. "Action will only be in accordance with law," it had said.
In compliance with the Court's order, the State of Uttar Pradesh had submitted before the Supreme Court by way of an affidavit that the recent demolitions carried out in Kanpur and Prayagraj were done by Local Development Authorities strictly in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.
The State had submitted that the Petitioner has "cherry picked" two demolition actions of illegal constructions in the properties of one Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad and one Mr. Riyaz Ahmed that took place in Kanpur in an attempt to falsely link the same to the rioting.
The State had however further submitted that in both cases, certain portions of the two illegal/ non-compliant structures in question took place and that both buildings were under construction, not in conformity with the permission granted and most importantly, proceedings under the Urban Planning Act against the two buildings had been initiated by the Kanpur Development Authority long before the incidents of rioting.
Case Title: Jamiat Ulama I Hind & Anr v UOI & Ors| WP(Crl) 162/2022