The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of the Uttar Pradesh government in a plea filed by Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind challenging the recent demolition drive carried out on houses of those who had allegedly participated in protests against BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, after she had made remarks against Prophet Muhammad [Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and anr v. Union of India and ors]..A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Vikram Nath did not pass any interim order, but urged the authorities to ensure nothing untoward happens until it hears the matter on Tuesday, June 21."Respondents will get time for their objections. We should ensure their safety in the meantime. Let us be clear, they are also part of society. Ultimately when someone has a grievance they have a right to have it addressed," the Court orally said.The Bench made it clear that it cannot stay the demolitions, but can only say that such demolitions have to happen as per law. "We can't stay demolitions but (can only) say go in accordance in law," the Court underscored. The State and the concerned municipal authorities are expected to place their stands on affidavit by the next date of hearing..The plea, which was filed through Advocate Kabir Dixit in an already-pending case before the top court, stated that the demolitions in the State were carried out after protests were held against BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma, who was suspended for her remarks against Prophet Muhammad and Islam during a television debate, which sparked an international furore.The petitioner prayed for directions to the State to ensure that no further demolition exercise of any nature is carried out in the State "without following due process and that any demolition must be done only after adequate notice and opportunity of hearing is given to each of the affected persons."The plea said that as per Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act of 1958, demolition of a building can be undertaken only after giving the affected person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.Further, Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 also requires that the affected person be heard before proceeding with the demolition and be given at least 15 days’ notice, the petition submits. It was pointed out that as per the 1973 Act, a person aggrieved by an order of demolition is entitled to file appeal against it before the chairman under the Act within a period of 30 days of the said order.None of these legal provisions were followed with respect to the recent demolitions, it was contended..Senior Counsel CU Singh, representing the applicant, said that the demolitions were carried out without following due process. "Taking advantage of the fact that notice was issued but interim relief not granted even as status quo was issued in Delhi (Jahangirpuri) matter, spate of demolitions have taken place," he said.He added, "The demolitions have been justified saying that constructions were illegal. Shocking and appalling circumstances not even seen during Emergency."The homes that were demolished as part of the drive had been standing for more than 20 years, and some of them did not even belong to the accused, but their aged parents, Singh informed the Court.Singh also highlighted that Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Municipality Act provides for notice to be given to owners of such properties."At least 15 days have to be given for this, only if no action for 40 days can properties be demolished," he contended..Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh, submitted that the plea has not been filed by affected persons. "We filed affidavit after earlier order in Jahangirpuri, none of the affected parties filed plea. Even here it's some Jamiat. We made clear no legal structure was demolished," Mehta said.Mehta also submitted that all such demolitions were in accordance with law. "In Jahangirpuri area, we removed structures not looking at which community owns the property. Their fundamental argument is law is not for them. Mr Salve will be able to show that such proceedings have been going on with due process, and the latest demolition was an instance of the same. In entire country, saying follow the Constitution can't be argument for all relief. Procedures were followed. Entire genesis is procedure was not followed in 3 cases. Those are not before your Lordships. Based on totally irrelevant submissions made by a political party, they are alleging that rule of law not being followed," Mehta said.Senior Counsel Harish Salve, also appearing for UP, said that due process was followed in the demolitions carried out. "Media picks this up and hypes it to say that a blanket order should be passed. My Lords, give us time to place this on affidavit. Why should a generic order be passed?" Salve asked.