NAME & SHAME POSTERS: UP SEEKS MORE TIME FROM HC
The state’s special leave petition (SLP) against the March 9 decision of the high court is pending before the Supreme Court
PRAYAGRAJ: The Uttar Pradesh government on Monday moved an application before the Allahabad high court seeking more time to file a compliance report in connection with the high court order to remove banners, posters and hoardings of those accused of violence during anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protests in Lucknow in December.
PRAYAGRAJ: The Uttar Pradesh government on Monday moved an application before the Allahabad high court seeking more time to file a compliance report in connection with the high court order to remove banners, posters and hoardings of those accused of violence during anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Lucknow in December last year. The Monday’s application was filed before the registrar general of the court.
The banners came up in Lucknow on March 5 with personal details of over 50 of those accused of vandalism during protest in December.
Additional advocate general Neeraj Tripathi said the main ground taken by the state government in its application was that the state’s special leave petition (SLP) against the March 9 decision of the high court was pending before the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court had referred the SLP to a larger bench.
In this backdrop, the state government sought further time for filing the compliance report till the matter was finally adjudicated by the apex court, said Tripathi.
On March 9, the Allahabad high court had directed the Lucknow district magistrate and the Lucknow commissioner of police to remove these banners, posters and hoardings forthwith.
In the same order, the court had also directed the Lucknow district magistrate to submit a report of satisfactory compliance with the registrar general of this court on or before March 16, 2020.
Earlier, on March 7, a division bench headed by the chief justice had taken cognizance of the hoardings of CAA protesters installed on important crossings of Lucknow.
Subsequently, the court held a
special sitting on March 8 and reserved its decision after hearing advocate general Raghvendra Pratap Singh, who had told the court that this step of the state government was a ‘deterrent’ to prevent further illegal activities.
Subsequently, in its decision on March 9, the high court had order removal of posters, terming them as ‘shameless depiction of the injury caused to the precious constitutional value by the administration’.
The court had directed the state government not to place
such banners on the roadside containing personal data of individuals, without having authority of law.
However, the court had made it clear that on receiving the compliance report, the proceedings of this petition shall stand closed.
The posters had sought compensation from the accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they failed to pay. Rejecting the pleas of the state’s advocate general that object behind the posters was only to deter the people from participating in illegal activities, the court had observed on March 9, “Advocate general failed to satisfy us as to why the personal data of few persons have been placed on banners though in the state of Uttar Pradesh, there are lakhs of accused persons who are facing serious allegations pertaining to commission of crimes whose personal details have not been subjected to publicity. As a matter of fact, the placement of personal data of selected persons reflects colourable exercise of powers by the executive”.
While justifying its step to take suo motu cognizance of the matter, the court had further observed, “In the instant matter, the act of the district and police administration of Lucknow is alleged to be in conflict with the right of life and liberty. Hence, the suo motu action by the court is justified”.
The court had termed the action of the state as an unwarranted interference in privacy of people and hence violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provided that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.