Sonapur Demolitions Drive: Supreme Court Issues Notice to Assam Govt, Orders Status Quo

The Supreme Court on Monday, September 30, issued notice to the Assam government on a contempt petition filed by 47 state residents alleging a willful violation of the Court's interim order dated September 17, 2024, which directed that no demolition should take place across the country without the Court's prior permission.

A bench comprising two judges, Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan issued notice to authorities concerned to contempt petition alleging wilful violation of the court's interim order in Sonapur demolitions, also ordered that the status quo shall be maintained by the parties in the meantime. 

Also Read | RG Kar case: SC hearing outcome today to determine junior doctors' next course of action.

Over 40 residents of the Sonapur area of Assam had moved the apex court on September 28 regarding the demolition. A plea filed through advocate Adeel Ahmed, the petitioners sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors "for committing gross, deliberate, and willful contempt" of the Supreme Court's order dated September 17.

Supreme Court directs to maintain status quo on Assam's Sonapur demolitions drive and issues notice to authorities concerned to contempt petition alleging wilful violation of the court's interim order dated September 17, directing that no demolition should take place across the… pic.twitter.com/YfjruOhbZr

— ANI (@ANI) September 30, 2024

The Supreme Court earlier this month ordered that, as an interim measure, no demolition should occur anywhere in the country without the court's permission until the next hearing.

They claimed that authorities had placed red stickers on their homes without providing any notice or formal communication regarding the eviction or demolition.

The petitioners, including Faruk Ahmed, have stated that they have been living in the villages of Kachutoli Pathar, Kachutoli, and Kachutoli revenue village in Sonapur mouza, Kamrup Metro district, for many years. They added that they occupy the land under a deed of Power of Attorney executed by the original pattadars (landowners). Though they do not hold ownership rights, the petitioners emphasised that the Power of Attorney is legally valid, allowing them to reside on the land.