The Gujarat High Court has taken a stern stance by issuing contempt notices to two senior officers of the Junagadh Municipal Corporation. The notices were directed at the former Municipal Commissioner, Om Prakash, and the then Senior Town Planner, Vivek Kiran Parekh, for their roles in the midnight demolition of the Jok Alisha Dargah on April 17.
This dargah, aged approximately 300 years and recognized as the Jok Alisha Dargah Trust since 1964, had been situated at Gandhi Chowk in Junagadh. Known for hosting annual Urs celebrations and serving the local Muslim community for generations, the structure had an established history of religious use. The petitioner, representing the Waqf-registered trust, approached the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, citing non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directives dating back to 2018 regarding unauthorized religious structures on public land.
The roots of the controversy trace back to a Supreme Court judgment from September 29, 2009, which barred new unauthorized religious buildings—be they temples, mosques, churches, or gurudwaras—on public streets, parks, or other government-owned areas. Equally significant was the Supreme Court’s 2018 clarification, stating that unauthorized religious structures erected before the 2009 order would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by High Courts, alongside interim protection continuing until such review concluded.
In April 2024, Gujarat's state government adopted a policy stipulating that Municipal Commissioners and District Collectors must form committees, appoint nodal officers, and consider options such as removal, relocation, or regularization for existing unauthorized constructions. However, this policy also implicitly recognized that any action should align with larger legal parameters, including Supreme Court orders.
In the specific case before Gujarat High Court, the timeline is telling: on January 31, 2025, the Senior Town Planner issued a notice to the dargah trustees, asking them to prove ownership within three days. The trustees complied by submitting documentation on February 3, which explicitly referred to both the Supreme Court’s 2018 order and ongoing judicial proceedings dating back to 2006. When a final warning to remove the structure was dispatched on April 9, the trust again responded, reiterating its legal position. Yet, despite these submissions and while the Special Civil Application filed in 2006 remained pending, demolition machinery moved in around midnight on April 17, pulling the dargah down.
The High Court, through a Division Bench of Justices A. S. Supehia and R. T. Vachhani, voiced strong reservations. It observed that the municipal officers had seemingly “acted in defiance” of both Supreme Court orders and the state government’s policy. Noting that high courts possess the authority to enforce contempt proceedings in such circumstances, the court proceeded to formally issue notices to the officers, scheduling the matter for July 28.
Press reports reveal that Om Prakash was transferred in June to become the District Collector of Rajkot, and Tejas Parmar has since taken over as Municipal Commissioner in Junagadh. However, while these administrative shifts may affect the ongoing proceedings, the High Court’s notice remains directed at the officials responsible at the time of the demolition.
At the heart of this episode lies a critical legal and social issue: the demolition of heritage or religious structures on public land without adequate judicial oversight. The petitioners argue that the actions violated not only Supreme Court mandates but also principles of due process and natural justice, given that the dargah trustees had timely responded to authorities and relied on long-standing Supreme Court rulings. The State, in contrast, maintains that the demolition was warranted as part of a broader effort to clear encroachments on public property, in line with both the Apex Court and state policy frameworks.
The High Court’s intervention sends a powerful message: even when acting under state policy, municipal authorities cannot disregard Supreme Court authority or bypass High Court oversight simply by citing encroachment removal. Their actions must harmonize with constitutional safeguards and judicial directives, particularly when religious institutions and heritage sites are concerned.
This case also echoes earlier judicial interventions elsewhere in Gujarat. In 2006, the Supreme Court had paused the removal of a similarly historic dargah in Vadodara, warning that municipal overreach could lead to violence. Similarly, within the same district of Junagadh, the HC had previously issued notices challenging demolition notices targeting several other century-old dargahs, underlining its consistent attention to due process in matters affecting minorities and religious structures.
The Gujarat High Court's current action underscores its view that demolition drives must not be used to bypass open judicial processes or longstanding community rights. By initiating contempt proceedings, the Bench reinforces the rule that public institutions must navigate encroachment issues through transparent, just, and legally compliant channels.
Summing up, this incident raises profound questions about the balance between maintaining public order, preserving heritage, and enforcing the law. It highlights the tension between municipal authorities' drive to clear public land and the judiciary’s duty to ensure procedural fairness, particularly when religious structures fall within contested public spaces. The scheduled contempt hearing on July 28 could become a watershed moment, clarifying the limits of administrative authority and cementing the role of High Courts as guardians of legal process—even in municipal encroachments.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.