On May 2, the Uttarakhand High Court delivered scathing criticism against the State Police and the local municipal body in response to communal violence that broke out in Nainital following the arrest of a Muslim man, Muhammad Usman, accused of raping a minor girl. A Bench comprising Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Ravindra Maithani raised serious concerns about law enforcement’s failure to prevent mob violence and vandalism of shops owned by minority community, as well as the legality of the municipal authority’s 3-days demolition notice issued to the accused’s family.
Petition filed by accused’s wife against demolition notice
The Court was hearing a petition titled Husan Begum v State of Uttarakhand, [WPCRL/419/2025], filed by the accused’s wife, Husan Begum. She challenged a three-day demolition notice issued by the local municipal body for their family home, where she stated they have been residing for over 20 years without ever receiving any encroachment notice prior to this.
Her plea also raised alarm over ongoing communal violence and threats to her family, citing the urgency of police protection in the volatile atmosphere. She argued that the short notice period made it impossible to respond, especially since all documentation related to the house was managed by her husband, who is currently in custody.
HC flags violation of Supreme Court orders on demolitions
The High Court expressed grave concern over the issuance of the demolition notice, deeming it a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s directives aimed at preventing unlawful demolitions of properties belonging to accused individuals. Citing a landmark ruling from November 2024, the Supreme Court had clearly stated that no demolition should occur without a prior show cause notice—returnable either as per local laws or within 15 days, whichever is later.
The High Court sternly warned, “We are issuing contempt and we are taking it up seriously. You cannot violate the Supreme Court order. It was not passed eons ago… The Supreme Court has been very clear: if you want to demolish a house, what is the procedure…” as Bar and Bench reported
[BREAKING] “Incompetent”: Uttarakhand High Court slams police for communal violence in Nainital after rape of minor; pulls up municipal body for bid to demolish house of accusedhttps://t.co/4c1UDtxEmL
— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2025
Administrative failure and police incompetence in maintaining law & order
The Bench criticised the district administration and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) PS Meena for failing to prevent mob attacks and vandalism in the market area housing Usman’s office. The judges noted with concern the destruction of property—including that of unrelated individuals like a woman named Bimla Devi—and questioned the police’s apparent inability to contain the situation, Bar and Bench reported.
“Your incompetence leads to all these problems and you want to cover it up. Shops belonging to everybody… some Bimla Devi, why was her shop ransacked?” the Court asked pointedly, emphasising the systemic failure of the law enforcement apparatus, as reported
Demolition amidst mob violence: legal and ethical violations
According to Live Law, taking oral note of the “disturbing” series of events, the Bench lambasted the municipal council for flouting Supreme Court orders. “Tell us why we should not initiate suo moto contempt against you?…The Supreme Court has considered all these kinds of issues, especially in this background and you all go on a rampage like this, what is this?… We will take up contempt seriously,” the Court remarked.
The municipal body’s counsel responded by tendering an unconditional apology and assured the Court that the demolition notice would be withdrawn. “Immediately, all the notices will be withdrawn. We can only proceed as per the Supreme Court’s order,” the counsel submitted.
Communal violence following rape allegation against 76-years-old Muslim man
Sabrang India reports that communal violence erupted on May 1, a day after the police registered a complaint alleging the rape of a 12-year-old girl by Muhammad Usman. Right-wing protesters took to the streets demanding swift action, which soon escalated into targeted attacks and destruction of property in Nainital. The accused’s wife subsequently approached the Court not only to challenge the demolition notice but also to seek police protection amidst threats to her family.
The Court was also informed of an altercation that occurred when the accused was produced before the trial court, during which his lawyer faced interference. The judges were quick to condemn the incident. “How can lawyers prevent anybody from representing anyone…” They added that the entire situation was avoidable had the police exercised due vigilance, and inquired, “What action have you taken against arsonists?”
Administration urged to remain unemotional, act lawfully
The Bench made an indirect reference to the aftermath of the recent Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir, particularly citing the dignity and restraint shown by Himanshi Narwal, wife of slain Navy Lieutenant Vinay Narwal. She had publicly rejected hatred against Muslims and Kashmiris, calling only for peace.
Quoting her implicitly, the Court remarked, “Can somebody access the Times Of India… that wife of that slain Navy officer, please read her statement… please read that statement… The Naval officer, who was killed… See public may get emotional, can the administration get emotional?” as per Live Law report.
The Court advised the government counsel not to get swayed by emotion but to act strictly in accordance with law, reinforcing the principle that legal procedures cannot be abandoned under the pressure of public outrage.
Advocate Dr. Kartikeya Hari Gupta appeared for the petitioner, Husan Begum. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on May 6. The Court reiterated that the actions of the authorities would continue to be scrutinized, especially in light of Supreme Court precedent and the ongoing threat to the rule of law posed by emotionally driven administrative decisions.
Related:
Nainital on communal edge after 75-year-old Muslim man booked for alleged rape of minor girl