The Uttarakhand High Court has intervened to temporarily stop the demolition of a house belonging to a 72-year-old contractor accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in Nainital. The court cited "humanitarian grounds in view of the winter season" for its decision, providing a reprieve to the accused's family until the cold months pass.
Court's Order and Legal Proceedings
A bench comprising Chief Justice G Narender and Justice Alok Mahra issued the stay order while hearing a petition filed by the accused's 65-year-old wife. The court explicitly stated, "Demolition action shall be stayed till the passing of the winter season." The matter has been scheduled for its next hearing on January 5, 2026. The judges also directed the state government to file its counter-affidavit, if it intends to do so, within a period of two weeks.
This is not the first time the High Court has scrutinized the authorities' actions in this case. Back in May, the court had reprimanded the Nainital municipal council for serving an encroachment notice to the accused. The council later admitted that it had not followed Supreme Court guidelines for demolitions, which mandate a minimum 15-day notice period before removing any alleged illegal structure. The officials had instead issued only a three-day ultimatum. The court had then ordered the authorities to tender an unconditional apology.
Background of Communal Unrest and Authority's Claims
The rape case itself had triggered large-scale communal violence in the hill town during May. The violent incidents led to the vandalism of shops, particularly those owned by members of a specific community, and forced the closure of schools and businesses.
The recent push for demolition came from the District Level Development Authority (DLDA), which had directed the family to vacate the house after issuing repeated notices. The petitioner's counsel, Kartikey Hari Gupta, informed the court that despite a revision petition being pending before the chief administrator of the Uttarakhand housing and urban development authority, a DLDA official visited the couple's premises on December 9. The official allegedly warned the family to vacate within three days or face forcible demolition.
The DLDA, defending its action in court, claimed the house was constructed on forest land and that the accused did not possess valid ownership documents. The authority asserted it was acting in compliance with Supreme Court directions and that the accused had exhausted all available appellate remedies.
Allegations of Selective Targeting and Violation of Norms
Advocate Gupta countered the DLDA's claims, arguing that the authorities had violated SC guidelines and were selectively targeting his client's house due to pressure from local groups. He presented a significant claim to the court: "More than 130 houses exist in the same area on similar land, yet no action has been initiated against neighbouring structures."
He further contended that the house stands on private land belonging to the accused. Gupta added that the area has never been formally notified as a development area under the Uttarakhand Urban and Country Planning and Development Act, 1973, challenging the very jurisdiction of the development authority in this case.
The court's decision to stay the demolition on humanitarian grounds adds another layer to this legally and socially complex case, which continues to unfold amidst allegations of procedural lapses and selective enforcement of the law.
