Clarion India
NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that there was no law to support putting up hoardings with names, photographs and addresses of anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protestors and refused to stay the Allahabad High Court’s order which tells Yogi Adityanath government to remove those name-and-shame hoardings. However, the court referred the matter to a three-judge regular bench.
A two-judge vacation bench was hearing a special leave petition filed by the Uttar Pradesh government against the Allahabad High Court order to remove the hoardings in Lucknow.
Last week, the Adityanath-led state government set up the hoardings at several locations in Lucknow to target those who was involved in the anti-CAA protests and were accused by the government of indulging in the violence. However, taking suo motu cognisance of the matter, the Allahabad High Court on March 9 ordered the removal of the hoardings, calling the state government’s action “shameless” and an “unwarranted interference in privacy”.
The hoardings had photos, names and addresses of 53 people, including activist Sadaf Jafar, former bureaucrat SR Darapuri, Shia cleric Maulana Saif Abbas, human rights activist Mohammed Shoaib and theatre personality Deepak Kabir.
During the hearing on Thursday, the Uttar Pradesh government told the top court bench that the High Court had erred in passing the order. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, said that the erecting of banners was done after the adjudicating authority had heard 95 people. He claimed that 57 people were responsible in rioting.
However, the Supreme Court castigated the state. Justice UU Lalit observed that even though there must not be unruly and disorderly behaviour, there needed to be a law that defended such hoardings in order to leave them up. “If a person does not have orderly behaviour and somebody videographs it, this waives the right to privacy,” said Justice Lalit. “But we are on a different aspect, whether the right is castigated for all times.”
To this, Solicitor General Mehta said that a person wielding guns during protests and involved in violence cannot claim the right to privacy. He also read out excerpts from two earlier cases to state that there is a waiver of right to privacy once violence is committed in public.
Justice Aniruddha Bose asked from where the state got the power to put up such hoardings. Mehta argued that the decision was well within the contours of law. “The contours are laid down sufficiently,” he claimed.
When the bench asked if the time granted for payment of compensation for the damage to public property has lapsed, Mehta said they have 30 days time from February 13. “The apprehension was whether they will dispose of property to avoid payment,” he added.
The bench then noted that time is still available for accused persons, and that their petitions challenging recovery proceedings are still pending. The justices then asked if such “drastic steps are covered by law?” The court said that although it can understand the anxiety of the state but there is perhaps no law to back its decision.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Darapuri, asked since when it has been allowed to name and shame the accused. “Someone’s intention might be to shame, anothers may be to lynch. How do we differentiate and how do we control?” he asked. Singhvi argued that such posters are meant to incite people to lynch and hit the those named on the hoardings.
Senior lawyer Colin Gonsalves, appearing for accused Mohammad Shoaib, said this is the grossest form of violation. “Somebody can come to my home and kill me,” he added.
Senior advocate CU Singh, appearing for one of the accused, said the source of power to put up such hoardings must emanate from a law. He called it a “vindictive approach of the state government”.