Dehradun, May 2, 2025 – The Uttarakhand High Court sharply rebuked the Nainital police and municipal authorities on Friday for their handling of communal unrest and an unlawful demolition notice issued against the residence of an accused in a rape case. The court labeled the authorities’ actions as “incompetent,” highlighting failures in maintaining law and order and adhering to Supreme Court guidelines on property demolitions.
The case arose from a petition filed by Husan Begum, wife of the accused, challenging a demolition notice issued by the Nainital Municipal Council. The notice targeted her home following her husband’s arrest on Thursday for the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl. The court’s intervention came amid escalating communal tensions in Nainital, where protests and vandalism of minority-owned shops erupted after the arrest.
Presided over by Chief Justice G. Narendra and Justice Ravindra Maithani, the bench questioned the municipal body’s hasty issuance of 63 demolition notices, including one to the accused, without following due process. The court cited Supreme Court rulings prohibiting “bulldozer justice” against accused persons’ properties, emphasizing that such actions violate fundamental rights. The municipal council admitted its error, offering an unconditional apology and agreeing to withdraw all notices immediately.
Turning to the police, the court expressed dismay at their failure to prevent violence in a tourist-heavy area near Nainital’s Kotwali police station. “Your incompetence fuels these issues, and you attempt to mask it,” the bench remarked, questioning why shops were vandalized and why the area wasn’t secured during the accused’s court appearance under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The court directed Senior Superintendent of Police, Prahlad Narayan Meena, to explain the lapses and submit a compliance report by May 6, the next hearing date.
The court also took suo motu cognizance of the communal clashes, ordering enhanced security measures, including vehicle checks and social media monitoring, to curb further unrest. The petitioner’s counsel, Dr. Kartikeya Hari Gupta, argued that the three-day demolition notice violated the Supreme Court’s mandate of a 15-day notice period, especially since the accused was in custody.
