SC declines to initiate contempt action against UP officials for defying freeze on demolitions

New Delhi, Oct 24 (IANS) The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to initiate contempt action against authorities in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly defying its September 17 order freezing demolition action nationwide.

A bench, headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, refused to entertain the plea filed by an NGO, remarking that entertaining a contempt plea on the basis of newspaper reports may open Pandora’s box.

The apex court suggested that it could have entertained the plea for contempt action had it been instituted by an affected individual.

Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, representing the UP government, said that demolition was carried out to remove encroachments on footpaths and the plea was filed by a third-party organisation on the basis of newspaper reports.

The Supreme Court, in an interim order passed on September 17, directed that no demolition will take place anywhere across the country except without its permission after several petitions were filed before the apex court alleging that bulldozer action was taken by various state authorities without sufficient notice. However, the top court clarified that its "order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court".

Last week, the top court refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking direction to recover from administrative authorities the costs of bulldozed houses of individuals accused of criminal activities, riots, or other offences. The Justice Gavai-led Bench said that it could not reopen the issue as it had already reserved its decision on laying down pan-India directives governing demolitions.

"Either you withdraw it, or we will reject it," it told the PIL litigant.

Sensing the disclination of the top court to entertain the matter, the petitioner's counsel chose to withdraw the plea. The PIL sought direction to make it mandatory to obtain permission from the jurisdictional District Judge before the start of the demolition process of any house, jhuggi or colony, apart from serving notice on the alleged unauthorised or illegal occupant. Further, it sought direction to publish a list of demolished houses district- and state-wise, along with names of DM, SDM, and SP/DCP concerned.

Disclaimer: This story has not been edited by the Sakshi Post team and is auto-generated from syndicated feed.