Uttarakhand HC Raps Police Over Nainital Communal Violence, Warns Civic Officials Of Contempt For Demolition Notice To Rape Accused

The court also reprimanded the district administration and SSP PS Meena for failing to prevent the vandalism of shops and restaurants in the market area where the accused, Mohammed Usman's office is situated.

As per media reports, the 'communal' violence and the vandalism occurred on Thursday after the alleged rape incident, concerning a 12 year old hindu girl, came into light, and some protestors took to the streets demanding swift action against the accused.

Following this, the wife of the accused moved the High Court claiming police protection amidst the ongoing 'communal' violence in her residence area as well as challenging the three-day time limit provided in the encroachment cum demolition notice issued to her husband.

Orally stating that it was 'disturbed' by the entire chain of events, a bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Ravindra Maithani questioned the municipal council for not paying heed to the Supreme Court's order.

“Tell us why we should not initiate suo moto contempt against you?...the Supreme Court has considered all these kinds of issues, especially in this backgound and you all go on rampage like this, what is this?...We will take up contempt seriously. You cannot violate an order of Supreme Court”

For context, the Supreme Court, in November last year, sent out a strong message against the trend of "bulldozer justice" by holding that the executive cannot demolish the houses/properties of persons only on the ground that they are accused or convicted in a crime.

In this case, the Top Court had provided that no demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided in the local municipal laws or within 15 days' time from the date of service, whichever is later.

Notably, while the Uttarakhand High Court did not directly refer to the communal angle surrounding the entire matter, the bench advised the counsel for the administration to refrain from getting emotional and to act strictly as per law.

Interestingly, in its oral observations, the Court, without quoting the exact words of Navy officer Vinay Narwal's wife, a victim of the Pahalgam terror attack, orally asked the counsel to go through her statement.

“Can somebody access the Times Of India (newspaper)…that wife of that slain Navy officer, please read her statement…please read that statement…the Naval officer, who was killed…See public may get emotional, can the administration get emotional?”

For context, Himanshi Narwal, the wife of Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal, who was among the 20-odd tourists killed in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam Terror attack had said on Thursday that her family did not approve of the hatred against the Muslims and the Kashmiris in the aftermath of the terror attack and that they only sought 'peace'.

Responding to the Court's concerns, the counsel for the Municipal Authority, at the outset, tendered an unconditional apology for issuing the notice in question.

“Immediately, all the notices will be withdrawn, we can only proceed as per the Supreme Court's order”, he submitted.

The Court further pointed out that maintaining law and order becomes meaningless when the administration itself behaves in such a manner. How many police personnel can be deployed to ensure peace under such circumstances?, the Court orally asked.

The matter will now come up for a hearing on May 6.

It may be noted that in her petitioner before the HC, the accused's wife has submitted that all the records and formalities related to her house are managed by her husband, who is currently in jail and as a result, it is not possible for the petitioner to submit a reply within the three-day period stipulated in the notice by the Municipal corporation.

In her plea, she has also claimed that the ongoing 'communal' threats and violence against her family, they are all under constant threat.