Supreme Court stays demolition drive against illegal constructions near Krishna Janmabhoomi in Mathura

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti has intervened, ordering a temporary status quo in the matter. The bench has directed notice to be issued to the central government and other concerned parties involved.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (August 16) took a decisive stance in response to the ongoing demolition drive conducted by railway authorities to remove alleged unauthorized constructions near Uttar Pradesh's Mathura, adjacent to the Krishna Janmabhoomi.

A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose, Sanjay Kumar, and SVN Bhatti has intervened, ordering a temporary status quo in the matter. The bench has directed notice to be issued to the central government and other concerned parties involved.

During the proceedings, the bench said, "For the next 10 days, let there be a status quo concerning the subject premises. The matter will be listed for further consideration after one week."

The legal representative representing the petitioner, Yakub Shah, conveyed to the bench that around 100 houses had already been demolished, leaving approximately 70 to 80 houses yet untouched. He emphasized that the entire situation could potentially become irrelevant and moot if further demolitions were carried out, especially given that these actions occurred on a day when the courts in Uttar Pradesh were non-operational.

The urgency of the plea led to its presentation before a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud twice. In response, the CJI highlighted that a petition contesting the demolitions was already pending in a lower court and no injunction to prevent the authorities from proceeding with the demolition had been issued at that juncture.

This observation underscores the jurisdictional context of the case and the ongoing legal considerations surrounding the matter.

The current petition aims to temporarily halt the ongoing demolition effort, a matter that is already under consideration in a lower court. The plea seeks to maintain the status quo on the demolition until a decision is reached on the interim application for a stay.

The petitioner contends that the Railway's decision to carry out the demolition, despite a pending hearing for an interim stay, constitutes an unlawful action.

Emphasizing their predicament, the petitioners assert that they lack an alternative residence and have inhabited the location for over a century. This extended occupancy underscores the depth of their connection to the site and the profound implications of the demolition for their lives.