SC Asks UP Govt To Withdraw Recovery Notices Sent To CAA Protestors, Warns Of Quashing Proceedings

Last year, SC asked UP govt not to take action on earlier notices sent to the alleged protestors for recovering losses caused by damage to public property during the anti-CAA protests in the state.

Representative Photo: Getty Images

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday criticised the Uttar Pradesh government's action on the recovery notices issued to the alleged anti-CAA protestors in December 2019.

The apex court has given the state government one final opportunity to withdraw the proceedings, warning that it will quash the proceedings for being in violation of the law.

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant stated that the proceedings initiated in December 2019 were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained, news agency PTI reported.

According to the Supreme Court bench, the Uttar Pradesh government has acted like a complainant, adjudicator, and prosecutor by itself in conducting the proceedings to attach the properties of the accused.

Withdraw the proceedings or we will quash it for being in violation of the law laid down by this court, the bench stated, as reported by PTI.

The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by Parwaiz Arif Titu who sought quashing of notices sent to alleged protestors by the district administration for recovering losses caused by damage to public properties during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) protests in Uttar Pradesh.

The plea claimed that such notices were sent in an "arbitrary manner" to a person, who had died six years ago at the age of 94 and also to several others including two individuals who are aged above 90.

Proceedings Conducted In December 2019 Contrary To Law: Justice Chandrachud

Appearing for the UP government, Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad said that 106 FIRs were registered against 833 rioters in the State and 274 recovery notices were issued against them.

She stated that out of the 274 notices, recovery orders were passed in 236 while 38 cases were closed. Under the new law notified in 2020, claim tribunals have been constituted which is being headed by retired district judges, and earlier it was headed by Additional District Magistrates (ADMs), she added.

The bench then pointed out that the Supreme Court passed two judgements in 2009 and 2018, which said that judicial officers should be appointed in claim tribunals but instead ADMs were appointed here.

Garima Prashad mentioned that 451 policemen were injured during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests and parallel criminal proceedings and recovery proceedings were conducted.

"You have to follow the due process under the law. Please examine this, we are giving one opportunity till February 18," the bench said, as reported by PTI.

Justice Surya Kant said, "Madam Prashad, this is just a suggestion. This plea concerns only a set of notices sent in December 2019, in relation to one kind of agitation or protest. You can withdraw them with a stroke of a pen. 236 notices in a big state like UP is not a big thing. If you are not going to listen, then be ready to face the consequences. We will tell you how the Supreme Court judgements need to be followed".

Justice Chandrachud questioned the procedure followed stating that when the court had directed that adjudication has to be done by a judicial officer then how ADMs were conducting the proceedings.

Garima Prashad said that all the accused against whom recovery notices were issued are now before the High Court and long-drawn hearings have taken place.

She stressed that these proceedings against rioters have been happening since 2011 and if the court sets aside these anti-CAA proceedings, then all of them will come and seek relief.

Justice Chandrachud responded saying: "We are not concerned with other proceedings. We are concerned with only the notices which have been sent in December 2019, during the CAA protests. You cannot bypass our orders. How can you appoint ADMs, when we had said it should be by judicial officers. Whatever proceedings were conducted in December 2019, was contrary to the law laid down by this court".

The bench stated that it will "quash the proceedings conducted prior to the legislation with liberty to take the recourse under the new law. Proceedings which are pending will be under the new law".

On July 9, 2021, the Supreme Court had asked the Uttar Pradesh government not to take action on earlier notices sent to the alleged protestors for recovering losses caused by damage to public property during the anti-CAA protests in the state.

The apex court had also stated that the state can take action as per the law and in accordance with new rules.

(With Agency Inputs)