Anti-CAA stir: SC slams Yogi govt over recovery notices, issues warning

An SC bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked the state government to withdraw the proceedings or warned of quashing the same for being in violation of the law laid down by the court.

The Supreme Court on Friday slammed the Yogi Aditynath-led Uttar Pradesh government for acting on recovery notices issued to citizens who were allegedly involved in protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in December 2019.

The court gave the UP government time till February 18 to follow the due process under the law and withdraw the proceedings. (File photo)

An SC bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant asked the state government to withdraw the proceedings or warned of quashing the same for being in violation of the law laid down by the court.

The court gave the UP government time till February 18 to follow the due process under the law and withdraw the proceedings.

According to a PTI report, the bench said the proceedings initiated in December 2019 were contrary to the law laid down by the top court and cannot be sustained. It said the Uttar Pradesh government acted like a “complainant, adjudicator and prosecutor” by itself in conducting the proceedings to attach the properties of the accused.

The court's observations came on a plea filed by Parwaiz Arif Titu seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protestors by the district administration for recovering losses caused by damage to public properties during the anti-CAA agitation in Uttar Pradesh.

In his plea, the petitioner said such notices have been sent in an "arbitrary manner" against a person, who had died six years ago at the age of 94 and also to several others, including two persons aged above 90.

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

“Out of the 274 notices, recovery orders were passed in 236 while 38 cases were closed”, she said, adding that 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).

The bench said, “The Supreme Court has passed two judgements in 2009 and 2018, which said that judicial officers should be appointed in claim tribunals but instead you appointed ADMs”.

Prashad said that during the anti-CAA protests, 451 policemen were injured and parallel criminal proceedings and recovery proceedings were conducted.

On July 9, last year, the top court had asked the UP government not to take action on earlier notices sent to the alleged protestors by the district administration for recovering losses caused by damage to public property during the anti-CAA agitations in the state.

The apex court, however, had said the state can take action as per law and in accordance with new rules.

Titu had contended that these notices were based on an Allahabad High Court judgement delivered in 2010 which "is in violation of the guidelines" laid down by the top court in a 2009 verdict, and re-affirmed in a 2018 order.

(With agency inputs)