The Supreme Court has today issued a notice regarding a contempt petition filed against the Uttar Pradesh authorities, accusing them of breaching a judgment issued on November 13, 2024. This ruling had specifically restrained authorities from carrying out demolitions nationwide without providing prior notice and an opportunity for hearings.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih addressed the matter, highlighting the petitioners’ claim that the structure in question was built on private land owned by them, with proper sanction from municipal authorities as far back as 1999. The petitioners argued that despite attempts to revoke this sanction, the High Court’s order in 2006 had annulled this attempt, leaving the original sanction in effect. The petitioners also pointed to an inspection conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), which confirmed that the construction adhered to the sanctioned plan, with only minor non-sanctioned elements voluntarily removed by the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners argue that the demolition conducted by the authorities was in direct contempt of the Supreme Court’s earlier directives.
The petitioners claim that on February 9, 2025, authorities demolished part of the Madni Masjid in Hata, Kushinagar, UP, violating the Supreme Court’s orders. They allege that the demolition took place without prior notice or the opportunity for a hearing, and that the construction in question, though slightly deviating from the sanctioned plan, was still eligible for compounding. Additionally, they seek a restoration of the demolished structure, or compensation for the damages, alongside contempt action against the authorities. The petitioners further pointed out that despite multiple objections and court orders to the contrary, authorities proceeded with the demolition, disregarding both legal procedure and the guidelines laid out by the Supreme Court.
Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi, representing the petitioners, emphasized the “egregious” nature of the contempt, noting that no demolition notice had been issued for the structure despite its private ownership, and no reasonable explanation had been provided for the sudden action. He also mentioned that after the SDM’s inspection, the authorities transferred him, and shortly afterward, police forces arrived with bulldozers to demolish the mosque. Ahmadi criticized the sequence of events, highlighting that political motivations may have played a role in the demolition, triggered by a complaint about the construction in December 2024.
The Supreme Court’s November 13 ruling had set out strict guidelines for demolitions, requiring prior notices, hearings, and the possibility of appealing the demolition orders before appropriate forums. It also stated that any violations of these directions would result in contempt proceedings and potential restitution of demolished property at the cost of the responsible officers.
The contempt petition itself detailed that despite the mosque’s legal standing on private land, and inspections confirming compliance with building regulations, the authorities initiated demolition following political pressure and complaints. The petitioners further accused the authorities of pressing false charges against them, intensifying the legal battle.
The Supreme Court’s involvement in this case underscores its continued commitment to upholding procedural fairness and protecting individuals from unlawful demolitions. The matter is now set for further consideration in two weeks.