SC Declines To Intervene In Demolitions Near Somnath Temple

The court's decision comes amid claims from the Gujarat government that the demolition was legally justified as part of an effort to remove encroachments on government land adjacent to the Prabhas Patan seashore.

"If we find they (govt) are in contempt of SC's Sept 17 order, we'll order status quo ante (reconstruction of the structures as they existed)." the bench said.

The controversy erupted when the 'Summast Patni Muslim Jamat,' a Muslim organization represented by senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, alleged that the demolition took place in the early hours of September 28. The action reportedly resulted in the destruction of nine religious structures, including mosques, dargahs, and mausoleums, alongside the homes of 45 caretakers.

The organization has urged the apex court to initiate contempt proceedings against IAS officer Rajesh Munjhu, asserting that the demolition was executed in violation of the court’s September directive. This order explicitly prohibited demolitions without the court's leave.

Countering these claims, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Gujarat government, labeled the allegations as “fallacious and misleading.” He argued that the demolition drive adhered strictly to legal protocols aimed at removing encroachments on government land. “Proceedings for the removal of encroachments commenced in 2023, and personal hearings were accorded to all affected persons,” Mehta asserted. He clarified that the encroached area is located just 360 meters from the Somnath temple and borders the seashore.

Despite repeated requests from Hegde for a stay on the demolition and to maintain the status quo of existing properties, Mehta maintained that the government would provide a detailed response to the allegations. He also noted that some affected individuals had previously approached the High Court, which dismissed their plea for a stay following a thorough hearing.

The Supreme Court had previously banned demolition drives with exceptions made for the removal of encroachments in public areas, including roads, streets, footpaths, and areas adjacent to water bodies, provided that there is a court order for demolition.

The case is set for further hearings on October 16.