New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday sought the response of the Chief Officer & Administrator of a civic body in Maharashtra for demolishing the tin shed scrap shop and house of a man after his minor son allegedly raised anti-India slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match on February 23.
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih was hearing a contempt plea seeking action against the Malvan Municipal Council for violating the apex court’s judgment laying down pan-India directives governing the demolition of structures.
In its judgment passed in November last year, the Justice Gavai-led Bench issued a slew of directions to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens with regard to the arbitrary exercise of power by the municipal officials in cases of ‘bulldozer/demolition justice’.
An FIR was lodged against the petitioner, his wife and 14-year-old son, under Sections 131, 196(1)(a), 197(1)(a), 197(1)(c) and 3(5) of BNS, for raising anti-India slogans. As per the complainant’s case, allegedly even the petitioner and his wife raised anti-India slogans, on account of which he informed his friend who reached there with 10-15 persons.
The complainant and his friends confronted the petitioner and his family, however, they again allegedly raised anti-India slogans.
After local ruling party MLA, Nilesh Rane, wrote to the civic authorities to take immediate action against the petitioner and his family members, the Malvan Municipal Council demolished the petitioner’s tin shed shop and house for being an “illegal structure”.
The contempt plea, filed under Article 129 of the Constitution read with Sections 2(B) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, said that the actions of the authorities have been collectively made in a calculated manner to consciously undermine the specific directions of the Supreme Court and the demolition is punitive.
“The rights of the petitioner and his family members have been violated by the respondent contemnor and other officers of the state government on account of illegal and arbitrary exercise of power,” contended the plea filed through advocate Fauzia Shakil.
As per the plea, the petitioner’s shop and house were looted post-demolition by the persons who had gathered there, due to which he has suffered a staggering loss of about Rs 15 lakh.
The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission has taken suo motu cognizance of the incident and has observed that “the reading of the news item prima facie reflects that the due process of law has not been followed for demolition of the structure. The principles of rule of law, which is the very foundation of the democratic governance, is violated in the process”.
In its November 2024 judgment, the Supreme Court had observed that under the constitutional framework, there is no scope for arbitrariness by officials, and no one can be punished or made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land.
(IANS)
