SC declines to hear contempt pleas over alleged violation of anti-bulldozer ruling
text_fields
Photo: IANS
The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain contempt petitions alleging that authorities had carried out demolitions in violation of its November 2024 judgment that laid down safeguards against punitive demolitions, and directed the petitioners to seek relief before the respective High Courts.
According to Live Law, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana observed that such cases involved disputed questions of fact that could not be examined in contempt proceedings by the apex court. The bench said it was not feasible for the Supreme Court to adjudicate every individual claim and transferred the petitions to the concerned High Courts, Scroll.in reported.
In its November 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court had ruled that demolishing the properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure was illegal and held that due process must be followed before removing allegedly illegal structures.
The court had earlier issued notices to authorities in some of the contempt petitions, Live Law reported.
During the hearing, counsel appearing in a petition related to the alleged demolition of mosques in Gujarat's Somnath urged the apex court to intervene, arguing that the actions amounted to clear violations.
A lawyer representing petitioners in a Maharashtra case also submitted that several demolitions had taken place after public statements by politicians calling for "bulldozer action".
The Chief Justice noted that the November 2024 ruling had carved out exceptions, including cases involving alleged encroachments on public land. According to Live Law, the bench observed that when authorities relied on such exceptions, the matter became a factual dispute that could not be decided in contempt jurisdiction.
In February, the Allahabad High Court had observed that demolitions continued to be used as a form of punishment in Uttar Pradesh despite the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling against the practice.