The petition sought the court's intervention in preventing communal violence and frenzy in Uttarakhand and the forcible eviction of Muslims in the name of protecting the "devbhoomi". The Bench remained firm and observed: "Why do you distrust the administration generally? How do you say they won't act and prohibit the illegal part of it? Isn't it unfair to distrust them completely?".—.On Wednesday, a vacation Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah refused to entertain a petition seeking the court's intervention in preventing communal violence and frenzy in Uttarakhand and the forcible eviction of Muslims in the name of protecting the "devbhoomi" (land of gods)..The Bench was of the view that the petitioner, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, ought to have approached the high court instead of coming to the Supreme Court directly.."This is an administrative issue. Law and order is for the administration to handle. You move the high court first. Why should we hear it directly?" the Bench told advocate Shahrukh Alam, who was appearing for the petitioner..Alam pleaded that the Supreme Court has been issuing directives to crack down on hate speech and that there is a continuing mandamus by the court against hate speech and against the state of Uttarakhand too. She added that a mahapanchayat is being called to pressurise members of a particular community to leave the state by June 15..The petition refers to a letter by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, Tehri–Garhwal, to the district magistrate of New Tehri Garhwal on June 6 stating that a "particular community" ply their trade as vendors through the villages, and are a "threat" to the "legacy of our forefathers", to "our women", to "our livelihood" and "our land".."Therefore, we have given the particular community an ultimatum of 10 days, in which they have to abandon their homes and occupations, and leave the Jaunpur Valley," the letter reads..The letter further warns that if this is not done, then the organisation and its supporters will block the Yamuna bridge and highway from 11 a.m. on June 20, 2023..The petitioner averred that in an apparent build-up to the "ultimatum", a mahapanchayat has also been announced for June 15, 2023 in Purola, where earlier posters had been put up, and certain shops marked with a cross, indicating that their occupants had to leave before June 15.."It is likely that further hateful and provocative speeches will be made targeting the particular community, since it is in continuation of the already criminal narrative in the public sphere," the petition states..It adds that certain Muslim leaders have also called for a mahapanchayat on June 18, 2023.."As reported in the national media, at a press conference the organisers stated, 'Through the mahapanchayat, we just want to make an appeal not to punish the innocent'. It is stated that neither of the two mahapanchayats should be allowed by the state government," the petitioner contended..The Bench, however, remained firm and observed: "Why do you distrust the administration generally? How do you say they won't act and prohibit the illegal part of it? Isn't it unfair to distrust them completely?"
The petition sought the court's intervention in preventing communal violence and frenzy in Uttarakhand and the forcible eviction of Muslims in the name of protecting the "devbhoomi". The Bench remained firm and observed: "Why do you distrust the administration generally? How do you say they won't act and prohibit the illegal part of it? Isn't it unfair to distrust them completely?".—.On Wednesday, a vacation Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah refused to entertain a petition seeking the court's intervention in preventing communal violence and frenzy in Uttarakhand and the forcible eviction of Muslims in the name of protecting the "devbhoomi" (land of gods)..The Bench was of the view that the petitioner, Association for Protection of Civil Rights, ought to have approached the high court instead of coming to the Supreme Court directly.."This is an administrative issue. Law and order is for the administration to handle. You move the high court first. Why should we hear it directly?" the Bench told advocate Shahrukh Alam, who was appearing for the petitioner..Alam pleaded that the Supreme Court has been issuing directives to crack down on hate speech and that there is a continuing mandamus by the court against hate speech and against the state of Uttarakhand too. She added that a mahapanchayat is being called to pressurise members of a particular community to leave the state by June 15..The petition refers to a letter by Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, Tehri–Garhwal, to the district magistrate of New Tehri Garhwal on June 6 stating that a "particular community" ply their trade as vendors through the villages, and are a "threat" to the "legacy of our forefathers", to "our women", to "our livelihood" and "our land".."Therefore, we have given the particular community an ultimatum of 10 days, in which they have to abandon their homes and occupations, and leave the Jaunpur Valley," the letter reads..The letter further warns that if this is not done, then the organisation and its supporters will block the Yamuna bridge and highway from 11 a.m. on June 20, 2023..The petitioner averred that in an apparent build-up to the "ultimatum", a mahapanchayat has also been announced for June 15, 2023 in Purola, where earlier posters had been put up, and certain shops marked with a cross, indicating that their occupants had to leave before June 15.."It is likely that further hateful and provocative speeches will be made targeting the particular community, since it is in continuation of the already criminal narrative in the public sphere," the petition states..It adds that certain Muslim leaders have also called for a mahapanchayat on June 18, 2023.."As reported in the national media, at a press conference the organisers stated, 'Through the mahapanchayat, we just want to make an appeal not to punish the innocent'. It is stated that neither of the two mahapanchayats should be allowed by the state government," the petitioner contended..The Bench, however, remained firm and observed: "Why do you distrust the administration generally? How do you say they won't act and prohibit the illegal part of it? Isn't it unfair to distrust them completely?"
