The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the Maharashtra government and others on a plea by a resident of Malvan town seeking contempt action against civic authorities for demolishing his scrap shop and house after his 14-year-old son was accused of chanting “anti-India” slogans during the India-Pakistan cricket match in Championship trophy.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih sought a response from the state authorities on the filed by one Kitabulla Hamidulla Khan, through advocate Fauzia Shakil.
The plea claimed that the demolition was carried out by the authorities after a frivolous complaint. It was alleged in the complaint that the anti-India slogan was raised during a cricket match between India and Pakistan during the Champions Trophy held last month. The plea disputed claim made in the FIR raising of anti-India slogans.
The bench issued notice and fixed it for further hearing after four weeks.
The plea contended that the demolition made undertaken under “political pressure” without notice to the petitioner and in violation of the top court's judgment against “bulldozer justice”.
The plea contended that two men had assaulted the petitioner's son near a liquor shop when he was buying chips after returning from a mosque. Subsequently, at the night, a mob came to the family’s tin shed house and assaulted them.
An FIR was registered against them on the complaint of one Sachin Varadkar, and the couple was taken into custody on February 24. They could secure the bail the next day.
The plea claimed that after the incident, the local MLA also wrote to civic authorities to take immediate action against him and family members, after which the civic authorities demolished the tin shed shop and one-room tin house on February 24. The plea claimed that the authorities alleged that it was an “illegal structure”.
In November, last year, the Supreme Court in its verdict had said that the demolition of properties of citizens’ without following due process is contrary to the rule of law.