'Will ask to restore': Supreme Court cautions Gujarat over demolitions around Somnath temple

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday cautioned authorities in Gujarat over demolitions in the state, saying if it finds that they acted in contempt of its recent order against such action, it will ask them to restore the structures.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Gujarat authorities for alleged violation of the apex court's September 17 order which had said there shall be no demolition of properties, including of those accused of crimes, across the country without its permission.

The court, however, declined to pass an order of status quo in the matter.

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing the petitioner Summast Patni Muslim Jamat, contended before the apex court that despite its order, the authorities in Gujarat have demolished structures.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat authorities, contended that the structures were abutting the sea and were around 340 metres away from the Somnath temple. Mehta said that this falls within the exception carved out by the court.

"If we find that they are in contempt of our order, not only we will be sending them to jail but we will ask them to restore all this," the bench said.

The court did not issue notice in the matter.

However, it asked Mehta to file a response. The apex court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on October 16.

On September 17, the Supreme Court had issued an order prohibiting the use of bulldozer by States for demolition of a property of an accused in a criminal case, without permission of this court, saying such action was against the ethos of the Constitution.

"Our order would not be applicable if there is an unauthorised structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also, to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a court of law," the bench had said, in a case related to "bulldozer justice".