The Supreme Court on December 4, 2025, refused to immediately stay the demolition of two houses in Bareilly linked to post-violence actions. The houses belonged to residents who alleged a “targeted” demolition after clashes on September 26. These clashes followed a sit-in protest called by Islamic cleric Tauqeer Raza Khan against alleged derogatory remarks related to “I Love Muhammad” posters. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard a petition filed under Article 32 by the affected residents. Senior advocate Rauf Rahim, representing the petitioners, said the demolition violated a November 2024 Supreme Court order mandating prior notice and a 15-day response period. “This is contempt in the face of the court’s order. One of the petitioners is a 70-year-old man who recently underwent cardiac surgery… the authorities have already demolished a part of his house,” Rahim said. The judges questioned why the petitioners had not gone to the Allahabad High Court first, pointing out that the High Court should handle such matters under Article 226. Justice Nath said, “If we entertain such matters, then Article 226 will be made redundant.” Still, the Court granted a limited interim protection, ordering the status quo be maintained for one week, until December 10, 2025. The petitioners were allowed to apply for urgent listing in the High Court during this period. The plea claimed authorities used law “as a weapon” against minority homes and violated constitutional property rights under Article 300-A. It said the demolitions broke fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21, describing the actions as “disgraceful and tyrannical.” Violence in Bareilly erupted after a protest linked to complaints about remarks against the Prophet and controversial “I Love Muhammad” posters during an Eid procession in Kanpur. Police said over 80 people have been arrested for violence-related cases following stone-pelting and firing incidents. The Supreme Court’s limited stay aims to protect the petitioners temporarily while urging them to seek full relief through the High Court route.