Bareilly violence: Supreme Court declines to halt ‘illegal’ demolitions, asks residents to approach High Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday, December 4, 2025, refused to stay the demolition of the houses of two Bareilly residents, who alleged that the State authorities had embarked on a “targeted” demolition operation following violent clashes that broke out on September 26 after Islamic cleric and Ittehad-e-Millat Council chairman Tauqeer Raza Khan called for a sit-in protest over his alleged use of derogatory remarks against the Prophet. “I Love Muhammad” posters.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 by two residents who alleged that their house and the adjoining banquet hall were razed to the ground without any notice and in complete disregard of due process.

Senior advocate Rauf Rahim, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated that the authorities’ conduct was based on the top court’s order dated November 13, 2024, which laid down pan-India guidelines mandating advance notice of demonstration and a minimum response time of 15 days before any demolition.

“This is disrespectful of the court’s decision. One of the petitioners is a 70-year-old man who recently underwent heart surgery… the authorities have already demolished part of his house,” he said.

However, the judges questioned why the petitioners did not approach the Allahabad High Court in the first place. “The court has already given a detailed decision. Apply to the Supreme Court and benefit from this decision. Why do you come under Article 32 every time?” said Bank.

Mr. Rahim submitted before the Supreme Court that urgent listing would take at least 10 days, during which time demolition could cause irreversible damage. Pointing out that the 13 November decision recognized the serious consequences of demolitions carried out without complying with legal safeguards, he urged the Panel, “The powers of this court are very great… please protect me in the meantime.”

The judgment, written by the then Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, had issued a set of directions strengthening the accountability of public officials for demolition operations carried out without due process. It also held that the authorities had the burden of disproving the presumption that the demolition was carried out to punish the accused property owner or occupant.

‘Article 226 will be canceled’

Justice Nath, however, reiterated the court’s reluctance to stay the demolition and observed that doing so would effectively ignore the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226. “You approach the Supreme Court and get a suitable order… If we take into account such matters, then Article 226 will become invalid,” he said.

When Mr. Rahim insisted that the authorities were “on the side of the bulldozers” and that more destruction was imminent, the Board agreed to grant limited temporary protection. “This is also an exceptional case because part of your house has already been demolished,” Judge Nath said.

Accordingly, the court status quo It should be kept for one week. In its instruction, the court panel said, “We are granting temporary protection for one week from today, that is, until 10.12.2025; the status quo will be preserved by the parties.”

The petitioners were also given the freedom to approach the Supreme Court and seek immediate listing of their pleas. “The petitioner has also been given liberty to address the matter before the concerned Board for urgent listing of the matter, considering that the demolition work has already started and partial demolition has already been carried out as per the contents of the petition,” the court said. he said.

‘The law is armed’

The petitioners alleged that State authorities were using the law “as a weapon” to target the homes of members of minority communities. The court argued that such demolitions violate the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A, which entitles them to compensation for losses suffered.

“The present case is a striking example of how the fundamental rights of innocent citizens can be illegally violated and violated in violation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14, 19 and 21,” the defense said.

The petitioners added that the demolition works, carried out without adhering to the principles of natural justice, reflected a “shameful and cruel approach” and undermined the foundations of an egalitarian society.

Bareilly has been on edge since the violence on September 26, which took place following a sit-in protest in response to allegations of derogatory remarks being made 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 the Eid-al-Adha procession in Kanpur. The poster resulted in Kanpur police filing a case against 24 people following objections from right-wing Hindu groups.

Police claimed that anti-social elements pelted stones and opened fire, prompting the administration to “use minimal force”. More than 80 people were arrested in violence-related cases.

It was published – 04 December 2025 22:23 IST