The Supreme Court on Thursday (December 4, 2025) declined to stay the demolition of the houses of two Bareilly residents who alleged that State authorities had embarked on a “targeted” demolition drive in the aftermath of the violent clashes that erupted on September 26 after Islamic cleric and Ittehad-e-Millat Council chief Tauqeer Raza Khan called for a sit-in protest over alleged derogatory remarks against the Prophet in relation to the “I Love Muhammad” posters.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 by the two residents, who contended that their homes and an adjoining banquet hall were being razed without any notice and in complete disregard of due process.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior advocate Rauf Rahim submitted that the conduct of the authorities was in the teeth of the apex court’s November 13, 2024 ruling, which laid down pan-India guidelines mandating a prior show-cause notice and a minimum 15-day response period before any demolition.
“This is contempt in the face of the court’s order. One of the petitioners is a 70-year-old man who recently underwent cardiac surgery… the authorities have already demolished a part of his house,” he said.
The judges, however, questioned why the petitioners had not approached the Allahabad High Court in the first instance. “The court has already given a detailed judgment. Approach the High Court and take the benefit of that judgment. Why should you come under Article 32 every time?” the Bench said.
Mr. Rahim submitted that securing an urgent listing before the High Court would take at least 10 days, during which the demolition could cause irreversible harm. “The powers of this court are enormous… please protect me in the meantime,” he urged the Bench, pointing out that the November 13 ruling had acknowledged the serious implications of demolitions undertaken without adherence to statutory safeguards.
The judgment, authored by then Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, had issued a series of directions fastening accountability on public officials for demolition drives undertaken without due process. It had further held that the burden lay on the authorities to disprove the presumption that a demolition was carried out to penalise an accused owner or occupant.
‘Article 226 will be made redundant’
However, Justice Nath reiterated the court’s reluctance to stay the demolition, observing that doing so would effectively sidestep the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226. “You approach the High Court and get an appropriate order… If we entertain such matters, then Article 226 will be made redundant,” he said.
When Mr. Rahim insisted that the authorities were “standing with bulldozers” and that further demolition was imminent, the Bench agreed to grant limited interim protection. “This is also exceptional, since part of your residence has already been demolished,” Justice Nath remarked.
Accordingly, the court directed that the status quo be maintained for one week. “We grant interim protection for a period of one week from today, i.e., up to 10.12.2025; the status quo shall be maintained by the parties,” the Bench recorded in its order.
The petitioners were also granted liberty to approach the High Court and to seek urgent listing of their plea. “The petitioner is also granted liberty to make a mention before the concerned Bench for urgent listing of the matter, considering the fact that the demolition exercise has already begun and, according to the contents of the petition, partial demolition has already been effected,” the court said.
‘Law weaponsied’
The petitioners alleged that State authorities had used the law “as a weapon” to target the homes of members of minority communities. Such demolitions, it contended, violated the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A, entitling them to compensation for the losses suffered.
“The present case is a glaring example of how the fundamental rights of innocent citizens can be illegally invaded and violated, contrary to the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14, 19 and 21,” the plea said.
The petitioners added that demolition drives undertaken without adherence to the principles of natural justice reflected a “disgraceful and tyrannical approach” and undermined the foundations of an equitable society.
Bareilly has remained on the edge since the violence on September 26, which followed a sit-in protest in response to alleged instances of derogatory remarks against the Prophet in different parts of the country, including Shahjahanpur. The protest was also in response to the controversy over “I Love Muhammad” posters during an Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi procession in Kanpur, when the poster resulted in the Kanpur police registering cases against 24 people, amid objections from right-wing Hindu groups.
The police alleged that anti-social elements pelted stones and fired shots, leading to a “minimum use of force” by the administration. Over 80 people have been arrested in violence-related cases.
Published – December 04, 2025 10:23 pm IST
