On Friday, the Supreme Court of India addressed the controversial matter of the demolition of religious structures in Prabhas Patan, Gujarat. The court declined to impose an immediate order to maintain the current state regarding these demolitions, it emphasized that state authorities would be responsible for any violations of previous directives.
What was the Context Behind the Demolition?
Prabhas Patan is home to the esteemed Somnath Temple, an important Hindu pilgrimage destination. However, the area also contains historically significant Muslim religious structures, including mosques and dargahs. The Supreme Court’s recent attention to this matter arises from a petition submitted by the Summast Patni Muslim Jamat, which claims that the authorities in Gujarat conducted illegal demolitions of these sites without adequate notice or hearings.
What Was the Court’s Stance?
The Bench, consisting of Justices Bhushan R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, emphasized that while they will not issue interim orders at this time, any violation of their earlier directives would have serious consequences.
The justice stated, “We are not issuing notice or any interim order…but we clarify that if we find they (state) are in contempt of our previous order, we will not only send them to jail but will also ask them to restore everything…we will order status quo ante”. This stern warning highlights the court’s commitment to maintaining the rule of law.
The court has earlier directed a temporary suspension of demolitions across the country, except where explicitly authorized. Nonetheless, it specified that this order would not extend to unauthorized constructions on public property, such as roads and footpaths, nor to buildings that have already been designed for demolition by a court.
What Were the Allegations Regarding Illegal Demolitions?
The petitioners alleged that the state conducted demolitions of religious sites, some of which date back to 1309, on September 28, 2024. Senior counsel Sanjay Hegde, who represented the petitioners, contended that the actions taken by the Gujarat authorities were in direct violation of the court’s restraining order. He criticized the notices served to the petitioners, claiming that they did not mention any impending demolition.
In contrast, Gujarat’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the state’s actions, stating that the land in dispute was owned by the government. He claimed that proper notices were issued, and personal hearings were provided to residents. He claimed proper notices were issued and personal hearings provided to residents. Mehta contended that the structures were located near a water body, and thus fell outside the scope of the court’s protective order.
The Court’s Clarification on Illegal Demolitions
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that its earlier ruling would not extend to public land and urged the Gujarat government to submit its response. Hegde urged the court to issue an order to preserve the status quo. It highlights the historical significance of the area, which encompasses several mosques and dargahs.
The court reaffirmed that if the state violated its directives, then it would be necessary to recompense the impacted parties. The petition highlighted the importance of these sites, including Haji Mangroli Shah Baba’s tomb. The tomb has served as an important religious structure for more than a hundred years.
Moving Forward
Earlier this week, Justice Gavai’s bench suggested the development of uniform rules for demolition activities across the country. This initiative seeks to ensure that demolitions are conducted fairly and transparently. It also respects the rights of all communities in a secular country like India.
Proposed measures encompass the requirement for prior notices, a reasonable timeframe for challenging demolition orders, and the possibility of videography of the demolition processes.
The recent decisions made by the Supreme Court indicate a dedication to curbing arbitrary demolitions. It is often referred to as “bulldozer justice.” With the case scheduled for additional hearings on October 16, the result may have lasting implications for the rights of religious communities and the credibility of judicial authority in India.
For More Law News:
- Arvind Kejriwal Vows Free Healthcare for Senior Citizens Over 60 Under PM Sanjivni Yojana
- FDA Introduces New Tobacco Warnings, to Combat Health Challenges
- Punjab, Haryana High Court Mandates Tight Security for Upcoming Municipal Elections
- Bengaluru Techie Suicide: Atul Subhash’s Accused Wife and In-Laws Arrested
- Ghost Guns: A Growing Threat to Public Safety
- Farmers to Resume March to Delhi on December 14
Mallika Sadhu is a journalist committed to revealing the raw, unfiltered truth. Mallika's work is grounded in a dedication to transparency and integrity, aiming to present clear and impactful stories that matter. Through comprehensive reporting and honest storytelling, she strives to contribute to provide narratives that genuinely inform and engage. When not dwelling in the world of journalism, she is immersed in the colors of her canvas and pages of her journal.
Comments