Introduction
In a significant legal development, a Contempt Petition has been filed before the Supreme Court of India against the Uttar Pradesh (UP) authorities for allegedly violating the Court’s directions related to property demolitions. The petition concerns the demolition of a property in Sambhal, UP that occurred between January 10-11, 2025, despite a clear directive from the Court in November 2024 prohibiting such actions without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Factual Background
Mohammed Ghayoora, the petitioner, claims that his factory, located at Tiwari Sarai, Behjoi Road, Sambhal, UP, was demolished by authorities between January 10-11, 2025, without prior notice or a hearing. The factory, a registered business approved by the Ministry of MSME, was the family’s primary source of livelihood. Ghayoora alleges that the demolition violated the Supreme Court's November 13, 2024 order, and that authorities threatened his representatives during the incident, constituting contempt of court and a violation of his fundamental rights.
Legal Provisions Involved
Article 19 (Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression): The petitioner contends that his fundamental right to express his grievances and be heard in cases of demolition was violated by the authorities' refusal to provide a prior hearing.
Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The demolition of the factory, which was the only source of income for the petitioner, is seen as an arbitrary deprivation of his right to livelihood, a critical part of the right to life under Article 21.
Supreme Court’s Order
The Court had issued a set of guidelines regarding demolitions to ensure fairness, transparency, and respect for due process:
- Authorities must issue a show cause notice before any demolition, allowing the affected party to contest the action.
- The authorities must provide an opportunity for the affected party to present their case before proceeding with demolition.
- The petitioner should be given sufficient time to challenge the demolition order before a competent forum.
The Court had further stipulated that violation of these directions would lead to contempt proceedings and prosecution against the concerned authorities.
Grounds for the Contempt Petition
The petitioner alleges that authorities in Sambhal demolished his property without prior notice or a hearing, violating the Supreme Court's 2024 order. Despite having all legal documents, including approved maps and certifications, the authorities used bulldozers and police force, bypassing required procedures. The petitioner also claims that his representatives were bullied and threatened with false cases if they resisted, further infringing on his property rights and disregarding the Court's directive for fair and transparent action.
Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court’s November 2024 ruling laid down critical safeguards to prevent arbitrary demolitions:
- Authorities must issue a notice to the affected parties, allowing them time to respond and contest the demolition.
- The person whose property is to be demolished must be given a chance to present their case, and a reasoned order must be passed by the authorities.
After an order of demolition is passed, the affected person must be given reasonable time to challenge the order before an appropriate forum.
Significance and Broader Implications
This case holds broader implications for ensuring that the rights of citizens are not violated through illegal demolitions. The Supreme Court’s directions set a precedent for protecting property rights and ensuring that such actions are only taken after due process is followed. The Court’s insistence on prior notice and personal hearings aims to prevent the abuse of power and ensure justice for affected citizens.
Conclusion
The Contempt Petition filed against the UP authorities is an important reminder that the rule of law must be respected by all, including state actors. The Supreme Court’s strict stance against arbitrary demolitions ensures that due process and fairness are upheld, protecting citizens' fundamental rights. The outcome of this case will likely set a significant precedent for how similar situations are handled in the future, reinforcing the need for authorities to act within the framework of the law, respecting individual rights and the judicial process
