11 Mar 2025 | Jaipur, Rajasthan : The High Court of Rajasthan unequivocally ordered that the status quo be maintained on the subject property. This order was issued after the district authorities served demolition notices to the families of a group of Muslim men accused of a crime. The petitioners, namely, Sakir @ Shakir, Begum Bano, Raj Mohammad, Chand Mohammad and Mohammad Suleman, with legal support from APCR, had submitted their responses on time, but demolitions were still being carried out and the threat of losing shelter still loomed.
Ten men and three Minors, all Muslim, were arrested in a blackmail and sexual exploitation case. The accused were then assaulted in court, and their families faced threats of collective punishment in the form of demolition notices targeting their homes, a mosque, and a graveyard. Within a few days of the FIR being registered, on February 20, 2025, the families of the accused in Bijainagar received demolition notices under Section 194 and Section 245 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 issued by Bijainagar Municipality. The notices required the petitioners to submit ownership documents immediately, in response to which, all the families filed their responses comprising sale deeds, electricity bills, and lease documents, the very next day.
With the assistance of advocates from the APCR, the residents filed their petitions before the high court seeking quashing of punitive notices entirely. The petitions, drawn by Delhi-based Advocate. M Huzaifa and argued by Jaipur-based Advocate Syed Saadat Ali, who is also the President of APCR Rajasthan, along with his team on behalf of APCR before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, have raised serious legal and constitutional concerns regarding the demolitions. Their plea challenges the arbitrary actions of the authorities, asserting that the notices violate the principles of natural justice, the right to shelter, and the rule of law. The petitioners argue that the demolition orders are being carried out without following the due process mandated by the law, including adequate notice periods and the opportunity for a fair hearing. The following key arguments were submitted:
Malafide Intentions: The petitioners argue that the notices were issued with malafide intent, aiming to exploit exceptions in the Supreme Court’s judgment in WP(Civil) No. 295/2022 and related matters to conduct a targeted demolition campaign against Muslim families in Beawar.
Violation of Municipal Law: The petitioners contend that the provisions under the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009, do not apply in this case. The homes in question have existed for decades, well beyond the six-month period prescribed for initiating demolition under the Act for any violation. Therefore, the authorities cannot proceed with demolitions based solely on the issuance of notices.
Right to Shelter: The petitioners further argue that the proposed demolitions violate fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and shelter. Demolishing the homes of innocent family members is a form of collective punishment that undermines the principles of criminal jurisprudence, where individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Selective Targeting: The petitioners highlight the selective nature of the demolitions, noting that notices were served to the families of the accused immediately following their arrests, further exacerbating the perception of a punitive, politically motivated act.
Non-compliance with Supreme Court Guidelines: The petitioners pointed out that the notices failed to adhere to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court on November 13, 2024, which outlined the process for demolition and provided safeguards to prevent arbitrary and unlawful actions.
However, the authorities were hellbent in targeting the families and their community, moving ahead with targeted punitive demolitions unfairly. In response, Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal issued an order granting an interim stay saying, “status quo to be maintained on the subject property”. The Rajasthan government has filed their reply to the notices issued to them on the writ petitions accepting which, the court maintained the status-quo and asked the petitioners to file rejoinders by March 24, 2025.
Case Title: Sakir @ Shakir vs the State of Rajasthan
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3321/2025
Connected Case: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3335/2025
Petitions Drawn By: M Huzaifa, AdvocateCounsels for Petitioners: SYED SAADAT ALI, M Huzaifa, Aatif Aman, Uzma Iliyas, Nadeem Qadeer, Anshul Mathur, Aafeen Rizvi, Advocates