Bahraich mazar demolition: HC seeks state's response on contempt plea
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has sought the state government's response on a contempt petition alleging that the Uttar Pradesh government violated an earlier assurance given to the court that no coercive action would be taken against the Dargah Hazrat Sayyed Mohammad Hashim Shah (also known as Lakkad Shah Mazar) situated in Bahraich district. On June 10, UP govt had informed the high court that it had stopped the demolition drive at Lakkad Shah and three other mazars situated in the Murtiha Range forest of Katarniaghat Wildlife division. (For Representation)
Justice Brij Raj Singh on June 25 directed the state counsel to seek instructions in light of the allegations made in the contempt plea directing to list the matter as fresh on July 3, 2025.
'Learned counsel for the applicant will serve a copy of the contempt application to the learned Standing Counsel today, who is directed to seek instructions in the matter as there is allegation that there is violation of the undertaking given by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel in the order dated 10.06.2025 passed in Writ-C No.5870 of 2025,' the court ordered.
The contempt plea moved by the committee of management Dargah claimed that despite the state's categorical submission before the court on June 10, 2025, that the demolition had been stopped and no coercive steps would be taken for the next four weeks, the structure was fully razed on June 13.
Earlier, on June 10, the UP government had informed the high court that it had stopped the demolition drive at Lakkad Shah and three other mazars situated in the Murtiha Range forest of Katarniaghat Wildlife division in Bahraich. The state had also assured the court that no further demolition or coercive action would be taken for a period of four weeks.
This assurance was recorded by a division bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, which was hearing a petition filed by the managing committee of Waqf No. 108, which oversees the dargah where Urs has reportedly been celebrated since the 16th century.
The committee had moved the HC after the forest department initiated the demolition of these mazars, citing encroachment on protected forest land under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
In the contempt plea, the waqf committee has alleged that on June 13, just 3 days after the state's assurance, the police personnel took the caretakers of the mazar and other people into custody and dropped them nearly a kilometre away from the site.
The plea further alleges that demolition at the site resumed soon thereafter and that the entire structure was razed and now only the graves are intact. The plea also accuses the authorities of wilful and deliberate breach of the undertaking and flouting the court's direction of maintaining the status quo at the site.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Telangana HC cancels land allotment to International arbitration centre; says govt acted in haste, land grant violated rules
HYDERABAD: The Telangana high court on Friday set aside a 2021 govt order that allotted 3.70 acres of prime land in Hyderabad's upscale Raidurg area free of cost to the International Arbitration and Mediation Centre (IAMC). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The centre was initiated and backed by former chief justice of India, Justice N V Ramana. A division bench of Justice K Lakshman and Justice K Sujana said the state govt displayed undue haste in the allotment. The previous BRS govt had allotted land on Dec 26, 2021. The bench was hearing two PILs challenging the allotment and the financial assistance of Rs 3 crore annually to the centre. At the time, the state had also decided to get all disputes arising from its tenders and other commercial deals necessarily referred to the centre. The bench ruled that the allotment violated the Telangana Land Revenue Act and the Andhra Pradesh Alienation of State Lands Rules, 1975, which mandate market-value payment for land given to private entities. The mediation centre, not being a statutory body or registered under the Companies Act, was deemed ineligible for free land. The bench, however, agreed with the view that the institutional arbitration must be promoted by govts and upheld the state's decision to give an annual financial assistance of Rs 3 crore and automatic reference of disputes. The judges added a rider that the state must review the performance of the centre every year after the passage of five years. HC flags centre's poor performance The two PILs were filed by Koti Raghunath Rao, an advocate from Hyderabad, and A Venkatarami Reddy, a retired govt employee. Senior counsel S Satyam Reddy appeared for one petitioner and questioned the state's support to the centre, which he described as a private trust. Low caseload a concern, says high court The Telangana high court, in its order expressed concern over the poor performance of the mediation centre. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "We would like to express our concern regarding the performance of the IAMC and its future." the judges said. "The statistics of the IAMC were placed before this Court. It was stated that as on 29.01.2025 only 15 arbitration cases were conducted by the IAMC. Out of the said 15 cases, 11 arbitration cases were conducted pro-bono." The high court bench pointed out that overall only 57 mediation cases were conducted by the centre, of which 17 were pro-bono. "The abysmally low caseload raises concerns regarding the future sustenance of the IAMC on its own. The govt, as a part of its policy, can provide financial assistance to a new institution like the IAMC. However, such financial assistance to a private arbitral institution cannot be perpetual," the bench added.
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Himachal high court rejects apology, ex-MP Sushant, son to face contempt case
Jun 28, 2025 07:48 AM IST Former Lok Sabha MP Rajan Sushant and his son Dhairya Sushant will face criminal contempt as the Himachal Pradesh high court on Friday rejected an 'unqualified and unconditional' apology offered by them. The high court had taken a suo motu notice after a video was uploaded on Facebook, levelling allegations against the judicial system. The court reviewed the Hindi and English transcriptions of the video. The Himachal high court has listed the matter for July 16 for framing of charges. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) 'We are sorry to say we cannot subscribe to the 'slap, say sorry and forget' school of thought in the administration of contempt jurisprudence… Saying sorry does not make the slapper poorer, nor does the cheek which has taken the slap smart less upon the said hypocritical word,' said the division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja while referring to Supreme Court judgements refusing to accept the apology. 'Apology tendered herein is nothing but a paper apology, which in the given facts and circumstances cannot be accepted. Had the respondents been sincere and honest, they they would have made all endeavour to have apologised at the earliest given opportunity. Therefore, the apology cannot be accepted,' the court said in its 21-page order. 'An apology can be accepted in case the conduct for which the apology is given is such that it can be ignored without compromising the dignity of the court, or it is intended to be evidence of real contrition. It should be sincere. Apology cannot be accepted in case it is hollow, more especially, when there is no regret and repentance,' ruled the court while listing the matter for July 16 for framing of charges. Both Rajan and Dhairya have been directed to personally remain present before high court.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court upholds Texas law to shield kids from online pornography
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a Texas law aimed at blocking children from seeing online pornography. Nearly half of the states have passed similar laws requiring adult websites users verify users' ages to access pornographic material. The laws come as smartphones and other devices make it easier to access online porn, including hardcore obscene material. The court split along ideological lines in the 6-3 ruling. It's a loss for an adult-entertainment industry trade group called the Free Speech Coalition, which challenged the Texas law. Th majority opinion, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, found the measure didn't seriously restrict adults' free-speech rights. Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors ... but adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification, he wrote. In a dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court should have used a higher legal standard in weighing whether the law creates free-speech problems. Pornhub, one of the world's busiest websites, has stopped operating in several states, including Texas, citing the technical and privacy hurdles in complying with the laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, celebrated the ruling. Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures, he said. The decision could pave the way for more states to adopt similar laws, the group National Center on Sexual Exploitation said. While the Free Speech Coalition agreed that children shouldn't be seeing porn, it said the law puts an unfair free-speech burden on adults by requiring them to submit personal information that could be vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The age verification requirements fall on websites that have a certain amount of sexual material, not search engines or social-media sites that can be used to find it. Samir Jain, vice president of policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy & Technology, said that age verification requirements raise serious privacy and free-expression concerns. The court's decision overturns decades of precedent and has the potential to upend access to First Amendment-protected speech on the internet for everyone, children and adults alike. In 1996, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a law banning explicit material viewable by kids online. A divided court also ruled against a different federal law aimed at stopping kids from being exposed to porn in 2004 but said less restrictive measures like content filtering are constitutional. Texas argues that technology has improved significantly in the last 20 years, allowing online platforms to easily check users' ages with a quick picture. Those requirements are more like ID checks at brick-and-mortar adult stores that were upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, the state said. District courts initially blocked laws in Indiana and Tennessee as well as Texas, but appeals courts reversed the decisions and let the laws take effect.
