11.2.2022, Friday, New Delhi
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday observed that all orders issued by the Uttar Pradesh government to recover alleged damages to public properties from persons protesting against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, or CAA, in December 2019 deserve to be quashed over procedural irregularities and non-compliance with its directions.Giving the state government a week to consider withdrawing by itself all recovery orders issued against anti-CAA protesters, the top court commented that the Uttar Pradesh government is bound to follow due process and cannot assume the role of everyone in an adjudicatory process.
“You have become complainant; you have become witness; you have become prosecutor...and then you attach properties of people. Is it permissible under any law?” a bench of justices Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked the state government’s law officer.
The top court was hearing a PIL filed by advocate Parwaiz Arif Titu, seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protestors by district administration for recovering losses caused by damage to public properties during the anti-CAA agitations in Uttar Pradesh in 2019. Titu alleged that notices were sent in an arbitrary manner and in violation of a 2009 Supreme Court judgment which obligated high courts to set up machinery for assessment of damages and recovery from the accused.
According to the petitioner, recovery orders were issued against at least 900 persons in connection with the anti-CAA protests. In Lucknow, more than 40 people were given recovery noticesworth ?64.37 lakh in all.
Opposition parties and several groups have protested against the implementation of CAA. CAA’s detractors believe that the law coupled with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise is intended to target minorities living in India.
The bench was livid over the fact that instead of appointing judicial officers to adjudicate complaints regarding destruction of public properties and recovery of damages, the state government authorised additional district magistrates (ADMs) to recover the cost of public properties damaged by the demonstrations.
It reminded the state’s additional advocate general Garima Prashad that the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling on the issue of damage to public property during protests was unequivocal that only judicial officers could be appointed as claims commissioners to examine complaints and issue recovery orders until the states come up with specific laws and procedure to deal with the subject.