Bahraich Accused Files Urgent Plea
Bahraich Violence Accused Seeks Relief
Plea Filed in Supreme Court Against Demolition
Three individuals accused in the Bahraich violence have approached the Supreme Court seeking urgent relief from demolition notices issued against them. The petitioners, who face the threat of their properties being demolished, filed an intervention application (IA) in the ongoing case concerning the Uttar Pradesh government’s “bulldozer action” against the accused. The demolition is scheduled to occur on Sunday, October 20, and the petitioners are seeking an immediate stay on the action.
Accused Argue Against Demolition Action
The accused—who work as hawkers and farmers—argue that their properties, which have been standing for 10 to 70 years, are being unjustly targeted as a form of punishment for their alleged involvement in the violence that erupted on October 13. The petition claims that the authorities’ allegations of unauthorized construction are a pretext to sidestep the Supreme Court’s earlier orders that restrict demolitions without proper legal approval. The plea highlights the urgency of the situation, as the demolition notice was served just three days before the scheduled action, leaving little time for legal recourse.
The petitioners further allege a biased approach by the Uttar Pradesh government, pointing to a “pick and choose” policy. They note that neighboring properties, including those next to the main accused, Abdul Hameed, have not been subjected to similar notices. The IA specifically references a local Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) who mentioned that the administration had posted a demolition notice on Hameed’s property and suggested that further actions might follow.
Government Issues Demolition Notices to 23 Properties
In the wake of the violent clashes, the Public Works Department (PWD) of Uttar Pradesh issued demolition notices to 23 properties in Bahraich, including houses and shops deemed to be illegally constructed. The owners of these properties were given a three-day deadline to carry out the demolition themselves, failing which the authorities would proceed with the demolition.
Abdul Hameed’s property, where a notice was posted, is among those under scrutiny. Hameed has been accused of shooting Gopal Mishra, a 22-year-old who died during the violence. The Block Development Officer (BDO) of Mahsi, Hemant Kumar Yadav, confirmed the timeline of the demolition, stating, “We have been asked to be prepared for action. Three days were given to the encroachers, and the action would take place probably on Sunday or Monday as per the instruction.”
Background: The Bahraich Violence
The violence in Bahraich originated from an incident on October 13 during a procession for the immersion of a Goddess Durga idol in the Maharajganj area. Tensions rose when some local members of a particular community objected to the loud music accompanying the procession. During the event, Ram Gopal Mishra climbed onto the roof of a house belonging to a member of that community, removed a green flag, which is a symbol of Islam, and replaced it with a saffron flag. This act escalated the situation, with members of the procession chanting slogans such as ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Jai Bajrang Bali.’
Shortly after this, Mishra was shot, and he succumbed to his injuries. The incident sparked violent retaliation from the procession’s supporters, leading to widespread unrest. Protestors used sticks and iron rods, setting fire to shops, vehicles, and properties associated with the targeted community. The clashes continued for around two days, leading to the suspension of internet services for four days in an attempt to control the situation.
Legal and Security Concerns Following the Violence
An FIR was registered on the night of October 13, naming six individuals and four unidentified persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The focus keyword “Bahraich violence accused plea” has become central in the discussions surrounding the legal challenges faced by those accused and the state’s actions in response to the violence.
The petitioners in the Supreme Court have emphasized the impact of the demolition orders on their livelihood and long-standing properties. They argue that the short notice period violates their right to a fair legal defense and the opportunity to challenge the allegations of illegal construction. Their plea for urgent relief is aimed at preventing what they view as an arbitrary and punitive action by the state.
The Role of “Bulldozer Action” in Controlling Unrest
The use of demolition as a means to control unrest has been a controversial approach by the Uttar Pradesh government. While the administration views it as a tool for maintaining law and order, critics argue that it can lead to further tensions and create a sense of victimization among affected communities. In this case, the Bahraich violence accused plea highlights the ongoing debate over the fairness and legality of using “bulldozer action” as a method of punishment.
As the situation develops, the Supreme Court’s response to the Bahraich violence accused plea will be crucial in determining the future course of action. The petitioners hope for a stay on the demolition, allowing them time to present their case and seek a more permanent resolution.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is based on reports of the Bahraich violence incident and legal proceedings. It is intended for informational purposes only and does not represent official statements from the authorities or the judiciary. Readers are advised to refer to official sources for further updates.