SC on bulldozer motion in Gujarat: If present in contempt, will direct them to revive constructions

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court docket on Friday rebuked Gujarat authorities after 9 spiritual constructions had been demolished close to the Somnath temple. The court docket warned that if it finds the authorities in contempt of its order banning bulldozer motion till October 1, it would direct them to revive the demolished constructions.
“If we discover that they’re in contempt of our order, not solely we will probably be sending them to jail however we’ll ask them to revive all this,” the bench stated.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan requested solicitor normal Tushar Mehta to answer the plea and posted the matter for listening to on October 16.
On September 17, the SC stated that bulldozers had been getting used as a punitive software and had been towards the ethos of the Structure and therefore wanted to be introduced below the ambit of “judicial oversight”. The bench clarified that its order wouldn’t forestall authorities from performing towards encroachments on roads and public land, permitting for the demolition of constructions—spiritual or in any other case—with out prior discover.
On Saturday, the Gir Somnath district administration carried out an anti-encroachment drive behind the Somnath temple, demolishing 9 spiritual constructions belonging to a minority group on authorities land in Prabhas Patan. The operation, which started at 5 AM, concerned round 1,400 police personnel below the supervision of SPs from three close by districts. To take care of order, police used lathi-charges to disperse a big crowd, leading to roughly 120 detentions. The principle market in Prabhas Patan was closed through the 12-hour marketing campaign.
On the earlier listening to on October 1, whereas reserving its verdict on the case stated that it’s going to lay down tips for all residents on the demolition of properties.
“No matter we’re laying down, we’re a secular nation. We’re laying it down for all of the residents, for all of the establishments not for any specific group,” the bench had stated.