New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday sought response from the Uttar Pradesh government on a plea seeking directions to quash notices sent for recovering loss caused to public property to the alleged protesters in the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act protest in Uttar Pradesh.
A bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising K.M. Joseph issued notice to the state government and sought its response within four weeks. The petition was filed in the top court last week.
Advocate Parwaiz Arif Titu, petitioner in the case, has sought stay on these notices, as these were sent in an “arbitrary manner”. The plea contends that these notices have been sent to persons who were not booked under any criminal offence. The plea claimed there is “no rule of law” in the state and that the authorities conduct acts which are “complete violation” of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The plea also said the notices were allegedly sent to a person, who had died six years ago at the age of 94, and also to two others who are aged above 90. The plea, filed through advocate Nilofar Khan, said notices were based on an Allahabad High Court verdict passed in 2010, which is violating the guidelines passed by the apex court in a 2009 judgment and re-affirmed in 2018.
“The contradiction is that while the Supreme Court in 2009 put the onus of assessment of damages and recovery from the accused on high courts of every state, whereas the Allahabad High Court had issued guidelines in 2010 judgement that let the state government undertake these processes to recover damages, which has serious implications,” it said.
The plea sought setting up of an independent judicial inquiry, on the lines of Karnataka High Court to probe violent incidents during the protests against the CAA-NRC in Uttar Pradesh. The plea claimed the state government is allegedly seizing assets of protestors in order to “take revenge for political reasons from one community who is in a minority”.
The plea also alleged nearly 925 persons arrested in connection with the violent protests may not get bail easily in the state unless they pay up for the losses. The conditional bail is only possible only after they deposit the amount.
