SC contempt notice to UP over mosque demolition

The Supreme Court on Monday issued a contempt notice to the district magistrate of Kushinagar in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly razing a part of a mosque in violation of the court’s November 2024 judgment, which barred demolition actions across the country without prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

A bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih also restrained the district administration from carrying out any further demolition until the matter is heard next on March 18.

The court noted the petitioners’ claim that the structure in question stood on private land, was sanctioned by municipal authorities in 1999, and that an attempt to revoke the sanction was set aside by the high court nearly two decades ago.

The bench was told by senior counsel Huzefa Ahmadi, representing petitioner Azmatunnisa, one of the people who had reportedly donated land for the construction of the mosque at the site, that a subdivisional magistrate (SDM) inspected the site in December 2024, concluding that the construction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and that any unauthorised portion had already been removed by the petitioners.

“It is submitted that in these premises, the demolition which was made is in egregious contempt of the directions issued by this court. Issue notice as to why proceedings for contempt should not be initiated against the respondent (DM),” stated the bench in its order.

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Kushinagar demolition case comes at a time when Muslim litigants have repeatedly raised concerns about selective targeting of their places of worship under demolition drives. A similar case from Gujarat’s Somnath district, where several Muslim shrines and other properties were razed, is also pending before the top court. The development also gains significance amid a wave of litigation filed by Hindu groups seeking the reclamation of sites they claim were historically temples but were later converted into mosques or other religious structures. These legal battles, unfolding across various district and high courts, have fuelled communal and political tensions. Among the most high-profile cases is the ongoing dispute over the Gyanvapi mosque in Varanasi, where Hindu petitioners have claimed the existence of a Shivling inside the mosque complex. Similarly, the Shahi Eidgah case in Mathura revolves around demands to reclaim the land surrounding the Krishna Janmabhoomi temple. More recently, litigations have expanded to sites such as the Ajmer Dargah in Rajasthan, mosques and shrines in Sambhal and Badaun in Uttar Pradesh, and other contested structures, reflecting the intensifying legal contest over places of worship across India. On December 12 last year, the Supreme Court stepped in and restrained all courts from entertaining fresh suits or passing orders to survey mosques to determine whether temple structures lie beneath them.

Meanwhile, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) said that the state government will file a reply and present its side in the court, the Samajwadi Party said that no authority is above the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

The petitioner alleged that, on February 9, authorities demolished the outer portion and front of Madni Masjid in Kushinagar without any prior notice despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in November. Ahmadi argued that the demolition was not just unlawful but a blatant defiance of the court’s order, pointing out that even after the SDM’s favorable report, he was transferred, and authorities proceeded with the action, backed by police and bulldozers. The petitioners sought contempt action against the officials responsible, a status quo order and compensation for the damage caused.

During the hearing, the bench observed that the court has consistently directed petitioners in similar cases to approach jurisdictional high courts. However, Ahmadi stressed that the present case stood apart because no demolition notice was ever issued, the structure was built with a valid and existing sanction, and an official report had confirmed its legality. He added that the demolition was triggered only after a political leader falsely alleged that Asia’s largest mosque was being constructed at the site, setting off administrative action. A small part of the structure, which was found to be unauthorised, had already been voluntarily removed, he further said.

The November 13, 2024 ruling by a bench of justices Gavai and KV Viswanathan introduced nationwide guidelines to curb arbitrary demolitions, warning against what has come to be known as “bulldozer justice”.

Recognising the right to shelter as integral to the Constitution, the ruling underscored that the state cannot bypass judicial processes to demolish properties linked to individuals accused of crimes. Quoting Hindi poet Pradeep (famous for authoring Aye Mere Watan Ke Logon) -- “To have one’s own home, one’s own courtyard -- this dream lives in every heart”, the court had ruled that no demolition could be carried out without prior notice, a 15-day response period, and a personal hearing. It also mandated video documentation of all such actions to ensure transparency.

By clarifying that these safeguards do not apply to unauthorised constructions on public land, such as roads or water bodies, or court-ordered demolitions, the judgment sought to balance enforcement with civil rights.

Meanwhile, Samajwadi Party national spokesperson Abdul Hafiz Gandhi said, “No authority is above the Constitution and the Supreme Court. When the apex court had stayed all such demolitions, why did the UP government go ahead with the demolition of the mosque structure. This is not in accordance with the law and UP government is not above the law.”

However, UP BJP spokesperson Rakesh Tripathi said, “The state government will file a reply and present its side in the court. The stay of the court below was vacated after which the administration has taken action. The UP government is determined to follow all the orders of the apex court and court below. We don’t want any kind of contempt on any step. At the same time, we also don’t want to give any freedom to any one for any kind of encroachment.”