Introduction:
In a significant legal development, the Rajasthan High Court, in Sakir and Another v. State of Rajasthan and Others and batch, has directed a status quo regarding demolition notices issued to the families of Muslim individuals accused in a case of alleged sexual exploitation of minors in Beawar. Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal, while granting interim relief, noted that the petitioners had received show-cause notices dated February 20, 2025, under Sections 194 and 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, demanding proof of ownership for their houses. The petitioners, having filed timely responses, argued that the authorities were still intent on demolishing their homes without considering their submissions. The court, taking cognizance of their plea, ordered that the matter be listed for March 11, 2025, and directed that the status quo be maintained until then. The case raises serious concerns over alleged selective targeting by the state authorities, as the demolition notices were issued just days after the registration of FIRs and arrests, affecting not only the accused but also their families, a mosque, and a graveyard. The petitioners contend that the demolitions are punitive, orchestrated under the guise of municipal regulations to circumvent Supreme Court directives against arbitrary demolitions.
Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the demolition notices were issued selectively, targeting only the homes of those accused in the case, including their family residences, a mosque, and a graveyard. They contended that this was a clear case of using municipal laws as a pretext for punitive action, violating principles of natural justice. They emphasized that the police had issued a press note detailing the arrests on February 17, 2025, and within three days, the Municipality Executive Officer had handed out demolition notices to the accused persons’ residences. They argued that this timeline indicated a premeditated effort to punish the accused and their families extrajudicially. The petitioners also pointed out that while their homes had existed for decades, they were suddenly being asked to produce ownership documents on an “immediate” basis, leaving them little time to respond adequately or seek legal recourse. They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures (WP (C) No. 295/2022), arguing that the demolitions violated the Court’s clear instructions against demolitions being used as punitive measures. Furthermore, they highlighted that issuing notices with a demand for an immediate response undermined the principles of natural justice and denied them a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
On the other hand, the state authorities defended their actions by arguing that the notices were issued in accordance with the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, and were part of routine enforcement against unauthorized constructions. They contended that the petitioners had failed to provide satisfactory proof of ownership, making their structures liable for demolition under the law. The respondents maintained that the demolitions were not punitive but a necessary municipal action, emphasizing that the law applied equally to all structures lacking proper documentation. However, they sought time from the court to complete their instructions, indicating that they had not yet fully reviewed the petitioners’ responses.
Judgement:
The Rajasthan High Court, after hearing the arguments, noted the petitioners’ concerns regarding procedural fairness and the timeline of events. Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal acknowledged that the petitioners had filed timely responses to the show-cause notices but were facing imminent demolition without any decision on their submissions. Recognizing the need for due process, the Court ordered that the status quo regarding the subject properties be maintained until March 11, 2025. The Court also directed the petitioners’ counsel to supply a copy of the writ petitions to the Additional Advocate General’s office and granted time to the respondents to submit their reply. By staying the demolitions, the Court provided temporary relief to the petitioners, ensuring that no irreparable damage was done before a proper legal determination. The case is now set for further hearing, where the court will evaluate whether the demolitions were lawful municipal actions or a case of selective targeting. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s role in preventing potential misuse of administrative powers and safeguarding the fundamental rights of individuals against arbitrary state action.