Also Read - Allahabad High Court Bars Advocates Facing Heinous Offences from Practice

To preserve the status quo during the interim period, the Court issued a protective order staying any coercive action against the petitioners for a period of two weeks from the date of the order. The operative part of the order reads: “Till the Writ Petition/Writ Appeal is taken up by the High Court i.e, within two weeks from today, no coercive action will be taken by the respondent(s) against the petitioners. It is made clear that we have not examined the matter and we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. It is for the High Court to consider the petition(s) on their own merits.”

The Supreme Court’s decision rests on two principal considerations. First, the Court emphasised its role as a forum of last resort and declined to intervene when an effective remedy was available before the High Court. By directing the petitioners to file an intra‑court appeal, the bench upheld the principle of judicial hierarchy and the availability of an alternative remedy.

Also Read - Calcutta High Court Holds Urgent Sunday Sitting to Hear Demolition Challenge

Second, the temporary stay reflects the Court’s willingness to prevent irreversible harm while the High Court re‑examines the matter. The two‑week window is intended to give the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to present their appeal without the threat of immediate demolition. The Court expressly clarified that the stay does not constitute a judgment on the legality of the demolition drive or the High Court’s national security rationale.

The appearance of Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Huzefa Ahmadi for the petitioners underscores the significance attached to the case by the legal fraternity. Their submissions likely focused on the alleged infringement of religious rights and the applicability of natural justice safeguards, although the Supreme Court did not delve into those arguments in its order.

Also Read - Supreme Court Bars Employer from Defeating Compassionate Appointment Claim Through Delay

Following the Supreme Court’s directions, the matter stands as “dismissed as withdrawn” at the apex level, with the parties now required to pursue relief before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court will now reconsider the petitioners’ intra‑court appeal, taking into account any fresh submissions and the limited period of protection granted by the Supreme Court.

The interim order does not prejudice the eventual determination of the dispute. It merely preserves the existing situation for a defined period, allowing the High Court to adjudicate the matter on its merits without the risk of the subject matter being altered by ongoing demolitions.

Also Read - Supreme Court Clarifies Use of Deceased Witness’s Testimony Against Absconding Accused Under Section 299 CrPC