Therefore, bearing in mind the “overarching” nature of the case spanning the right of the state to demolish a structure and the rights of its occupants under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty), the HC framed five questions of law for the parties— Is there non-compliance of the SC’s Nov 2024 judgment with specific reference to paragraphs 85 and 86 of that order?— Does the authority to demolish justify the act of razing a structure, or is there a duty on the anvil of the state, not to demolish a dwelling place in the absence of public need/purpose?— Are steps taken to demolish a structure immediately following the commission of an offence a colourable exercise of executive discretion?— How can HC balance the conflicting interests between the statutory authority of the state to demolish a structure and the fundamental right of the average citizen under Articles 21 and 14, to prevent it?— Can “reasonable apprehension” of demolition be a cause of action for a citizen to approach this court and if ‘yes’, what is the bare minimum for this court to hold the existence of such “reasonable apprehension”?The court made these observations while hearing a writ petition on Jan 21 filed by Faimuddeen and other who claimed that their relative Aafan Khan was named in an FIR under various sections of the BNS, Pocso Act, IT Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Act.The petitioners alleged that, though they were not co-accused in the FIR, they were targeted by a mob allegedly in collusion with the police.They raised a reasonable apprehension that their properties in Hamirpur, including a residential house, a commercial lodge and a saw mill, had been marked for demolition. They claimed that the commercial lodge and saw mill had already been sealed. Therefore, they sought the HC’s intervention to prevent demolition.The state govt, however, raised a preliminary objection that the petition is premature and that the petitioners must respond to the notices issued to them. In fact, an oral assurance was also given to the HC that no demolition would take place without adhering to the procedure established by law and without affording the petitioners a due opportunity to place their case before the authorities concerned.However, noting that such demolitions have continued in the state despite the SC order, the high court deemed it appropriate to address the questions it has framed.The matter will now be heard on Feb 9.
