While hearing PILs filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are resorting to "bulldozer" action to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots, the Supreme Court on Tuesday orally asked if it can pass omnibus orders restraining demolition of unauthorized constructions.

The Jamiat Ulema-E-Hind filed PILs alleging that authorities in states like UP and MP are using bulldozer action to destroy the homes of people accused in cases like riots. The Supreme Court asked orally if it could issue omnibus orders preventing the demolition of unauthorized structures while hearing these PILs.

The bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha orally observed,

"Rule of law has to be followed, no dispute. But can we pass an omnibus order. If under the Municipal law the construction is unauthorized, can an omnibus order be passed to restrain authorities?".

The Petitioners have alleged that the government is taking "selective action" against those accused of riots.

"Demolition of houses merely because somebody is accused of a crime is not acceptable in our society. We are governed by rule of law…", Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave submitted for the Petitioners. Citing a report from Indian Express, Dave submitted that in Assam, a person's house was demolished after he was accused of a crime. The senior counsel argued that police authorities are not resorting to demolition as a form of punishment.

Senior Advocate CU Singh, also appearing for Jamiat, alleged that despite the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in Jahangirpuri, the same modus operandi was followed in many other cities, including UP. "We have given numerous cases, where police officers announcing demolition and demolishing the houses of the accused," he said.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised a preliminary objection as to the locus of the Petitioner Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind. He submitted that the individual affected parties have already approached the High Courts. The SG added that the petitioners are creating a "sensationalizing hype unnecessarily".

"Replies have been filed by authorities that procedure was followed and notices were issued. The process started much before riots."

Senior Counsel Harish Salve, also appearing for the State, argued that the Court cannot pass an order that a house should not be demolished merely because the individual involved is an accused in a case. He asked the petitioners to not go by newspaper reports.

Singh contended that there are numerous instances where the Police authorities announced the demolition of the houses of the accused.

The matter is now listed for hearing on August 10.

Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind has filed two PILs - one seeking a general declaration that demolition actions cannot be taken as a punitive measure against persons accused of committing offenses. The second PIL was filed against the demolition actions carried out by North Delhi Municipal Corporation after the riots during the Hanuman Jayanti processions.

After demolition actions were taken against some buildings in Kanpur and Prayagraj, Jamiat applied for its petition relating to Jahangirpuri, alleging that the UP authorities were targeting those accused of violence during protests against the remarks of Prophet Muhammed.