Misuse of political influence and muscle: Supreme Court slams Samajwadi Party in office eviction case

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain Samajwadi Party’s petition challenging its eviction from a municipal property in Pilibhit, remarking that the office allotment was a product of political misuse and muscle power [The Samajwadi Party v. State of UP & Anr].

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi told the Party to pursue its pending civil suit in the trial court and declined to grant any interim relief.

Justice Kant reiterated that the Supreme Court would not step into the role of a civil court.

“We can’t assume the role of civil court and grant you injunction. These are not allotments, these are all fraudulent occupations using political money and muscle power,” the Bench observed.

Appearing for the Party, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave argued that the property had been validly allotted to the Party in 2005 and that eviction could only be carried out through legal proceedings.

“I was allotted this premises. If they have to evict me, they have to go to Court,” he submitted.

The Bench immediately questioned the basis of the allotment.

“How did you take it?” Justice Surya Kant asked.

When Dave replied that the allotment was made in 2005 by the Nagar Palika Parishad and that the Party had been paying rent regularly, the Court pushed back strongly.

“If you misuse and abuse your political power like this…you were the party in power and therefore for ₹115 do you think a municipal building will be available for a political party?” Justice Kant asked.

Dave insisted that the legal procedure had to be followed for eviction.

“They have to go to a court of law,” he maintained.

The Court then criticised the broader conduct behind the allotment.

“When you misuse your political position and power, you don’t remember at that time what law should be followed. When question of taking action comes, then you remember everything,” Justice Kant said.

“Have you ever had a building of municipality within a municipal area at ₹115? And you want us to believe it? People of this country should have some faith in the system,” the Bench further remarked.

Dave submitted that a civil suit had already been filed in a trial court and that the Party was seeking protection from eviction in those proceedings. The Court noted that it could not override the trial court’s jurisdiction or intervene while that suit was pending.

“In any case, right now you are an unauthorised occupant. You can apply for injunction in your suit,” Justice Kant said.

Dave responded that the suit had not been effectively heard due to repeated strikes by the local bar association.

“Every time the suit gets listed, the court goes on strike. Again it’s listed, court goes on strike,” he said.

Dave requested that the Court grant protection from eviction for at least four weeks. He also suggested that the civil suit itself might not be maintainable given the local court’s non-functioning.

“The suit has no maintainability… the court is on strike,” he submitted.

Justice Kant took objection to this characterisation.

“Because it was unauthorisedly filed,” he responded.

When Dave again said the Court was on strike, Justice Kant clarified the record.

“Please don’t say court was on strike, the lawyers were on strike. Don’t blame us for everything,” he said.

The hearing concluded with the Bench making it clear that the appropriate course for the Party was to pursue remedies in the civil court, rather than seek extraordinary relief from the Supreme Court in the face of an allegedly illegal allotment.