The Supreme Court declined to issue an order for status quo concerning the alleged illegal demolition of Muslim places of worship and other structures in Gir Somnath, Gujarat but urged the Gujarat government to avoid creating any third-party rights over the disputed land.
This decision was made despite initial inclinations by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan to consider such a directive. As the hearing progressed, the bench concluded that a formal order was not necessary at this stage.
The proceedings involved a petition challenging a previous ruling by the Gujarat High Court, which had refused to maintain the status quo on the demolition of Muslim religious structures and homes in the region.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing a Muslim party, raised concerns that properties on Waqf land were being affected. He requested the Court to direct the Gujarat state government to avoid creating any third-party rights over the disputed land.
In response, the Gujarat government assured the Court that lands in Gir Somnath, where the demolitions had occurred, would remain under government control and would not be allocated to third parties until the case's next hearing. This assurance was given to the Supreme Court as it reviewed the petition challenging the High Court’s October 3 decision.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for November 11, where it will also examine a contempt petition filed by the Summast Patni Muslim Jamat. The petition alleges that the demolitions violated a previous Supreme Court order concerning such actions.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sibal argued that the demolitions had targeted only dargahs, while some temples on government land remained untouched. He suggested that the authorities cited the proximity of the demolished structures to the Arabian Sea as the reason for their removal.
Sibal expressed concern that ancient and heritage sites, including dargahs and kabarstans, were destroyed, which he claimed amounted to contempt of a prior Court order regarding demolitions involving bulldozers.
The State of Gujarat, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, rejected the accusations, asserting that the demolition process was limited to encroachments on public land, a process initiated months ago. He emphasized that none of the demolished structures were protected and accused the petitioner of withholding critical information from the Court.
Another petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, argued that his client held a land allotment document dating back to 1903 and that one of the demolished structures had been designated as an ancient monument and registered as Waqf property. Ahmadi urged the Court to maintain the current status quo until the next hearing to ensure that any possible restoration efforts could be made if his case succeeded.
Throughout the session, it emerged that a previous directive issued by the District Collector in 2015 required the land in question to be designated as government property for specific uses, such as government offices. The Supreme Court bench emphasized the need for adherence to this directive, to which the Gujarat government confirmed its compliance.
The Court subsequently directed that possession of the disputed land would remain with the government and that no third-party allocations would occur until further notice. The bench clarified that the ongoing Special Leave Petition would not interfere with the High Court's authority to address related matters. Additionally, in an earlier session on October 4, the bench had reviewed a separate contempt petition, noting the demolitions occurred despite a prior Court order that required permissions for such actions, except when they involved public land.