New Delhi, Oct 5 (IANS) The Uttar Pradesh government Monday came in for a severe rebuke from the Supreme Court for allegedly flouting its order to stop construction at various sites of memorials to Dalit leaders in Lucknow.”You don’t behave the way you behave with the opposition in the assembly. Don’t treat this court as your political adversary, and as if you have some points to score,” remarked a bench of Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice Aftab Alam while censuring the state government for allegedly flouting its Sep 8 order.

The bench also told government counsel Satish Chandra Mishra and Harish Salve that the state government was behaving as if it is under a brute majority and unmindful of the rule of law.

“What distinguishes democracy from majoritarian rule (demagogy) is the constitution,” remarked the bench.

The state government has taken the stand that it continued constructions at some of the memorial sites because as per its understanding the court’s order was not applicable to all the sites.

“With deep pain we say that the arguments lack sincerity,” the bench told Salve, disbelieving his arguments for the Uttar Pradesh government, and added: “It’s all eyewash.”

The bench asked counsel if it was not prudent for the state government to totally stop the work and come to the court if there was any confusion about at which memorial sites the constructions had to be stopped.

“Any responsible government would have dropped the shovel (stopped the construction after Sep 8 order) and come to this court (for clarification of confusion if there was any),” the bench added.

The court at one point sternly demanded to know the names of authorities personally responsible for ordering construction at certain memorial sites and stopping at others.

“Who gave you the instruction to stop works at some sites and continue working at others? The orders came from which level, at chief secretary level or what level? We want to know the highest possible authority who personally passed the order to continue work (at certain sites),” the bench said.

As both Salve and Mishra hesitated to give a prompt reply to the court’s query, the bench asked Mishra to whom did he inform after giving the undertaking to the court that the construction will stop.

As Mishra fumbled and mumbled, the bench asked him again.

Mishra eventually mumbled, “I told both the (state) cabinet secretary and the chief secretary.”

Appearing for petitioner Mithiliesh Kumar Singh, who moved the apex court challenging the Maywati government’s memorial building spree in Lucknow, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi cited court orders of various dates, contending that they were applicable to at least 24 memorial sites in the city.

The judges also appeared to agree with this contention, but Salve contended that the order was not applicable to all memorial sites.

After giving a marathon two-and-half-hour-long hearing, Justice Alam sounded unconvinced with the state government’s contention.

“My mind is not very much at ease. The matter needs further hearing,” Justice Alam observed as the bench deferred hearing to Tuesday.