Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 14, 2022 at 16:49 IST
According to the Former Allahabad High Court Chief Justice Govind Mathur called the demolition of activist Javed Mohammed’s home in Prayagraj illegal on Sunday.
On Sunday, the civic authorities demolished Mohammed’s home, a day after he was arrested for allegedly plotting violent protests in Prayagraj. He apparently intended to oppose the two Bharatiya Janata Party spokespersons’ disparaging remarks about Prophet Muhammad.
While there are no provisions in Indian law that allow someone accused of a crime to have their home demolished, this trend has been seen repeatedly in BJP-ruled states.
“Even if you assume for a moment that the construction was illegal, which by the way is how crores of Indians live, it is impermissible that you demolish a house on a Sunday when the residents are in custody,” Justice Mathur says. “It is not a technical issue but a question of rule of law.”
In March 2020, Justice Mathur criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for placing hoardings in Lucknow about persons accused of provoking violence during the Citizenship Act protests in December, calling it “highly unjust.” The accused’s images, names, and residences were displayed on the hoardings.
The government’s action, according to Mathur, was an “absolute encroachment” on the personal liberty of those whose names and images were displayed.
Mohammed’s family was told to vacate the house by 11 a.m. on Sunday by the Prayagraj Development Authority. On May 10, the authority claimed that they served Mohammed with a show-cause notice, asking that he appear for a hearing on May 24.
Mohammed’s younger daughter, Somaiya Fatima, said that the family had not been served with any notice regarding the purported illegality of their home.
Fatima says she and her mother were held on Saturday night and released the next morning. She claims that while female officers tried to persuade them to talk, a male officer abused her mother and urged that force should be used to force them to “spill the truth.”
Mohammed’s lawyer also questioned the validity of the demolition, arguing that it belonged to his wife, but her name was not mentioned in the order.