The Supreme Court on Friday warned the Uttar Pradesh government with “consequences” if it failed to withdraw 236 notices issued in 2019 to alleged anti-Citizenship Act protesters for the recovery of compensation over damage to public properties.
The apex court said the notices had violated its 2009 and 2018 guidelines under which such recovery can be initiated only through judicial tribunals under a high court’s supervision.
However, the recovery proceedings were initiated through additional district magistrates, who are non-judicial officials. The state government had contended it had followed high court guidelines issued in 2010 that allowed recovery by non-judicial officials.
“When this court has passed orders, we don’t want high court orders. We will take HC orders to task if there is a violation of our order,” Justice Surya Kant said.
The bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Kant gave the Uttar Pradesh additional advocate-general, Garima Prashad, time till next Friday to come out with the state government’s position on the matter.
“Madam Prashad, you can withdraw this with one stroke of the pen…. If you are not going to do it, then be ready to face the consequences. We will tell you how Supreme Court judgments need to be followed,” the court said.
The Yogi Adityanath government had said that after non-judicial officials initiated the recovery proceedings, the Assembly had passed the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act, 2020, and sent the cases to newly constituted tribunals in Meerut, Lucknow and Allahabad.
Prashad said the tribunals were headed by retired district judges.
But advocate Parwaiz Arif Titu, the petitioner, underlined that the act was not in place when the notices were issued.
Justice Chandrachud, who headed the bench, observed: “We are concerned only with the notices which had been sent in 2019 during the protests. You (the state government) cannot bypass our orders. How can you appoint ADMs (for the task) when we had clearly said it should be judicial officers?
“Whatever proceedings were conducted in December 2019 are contrary to the law laid down by this court. We will quash those proceedings which are prior to your legislation.”
Justice Chandrachud added: “You can withdraw these orders with liberty to initiate new proceedings under the new act. Your HC orders cannot supplant our directions…. We will quash these notices then and you are at liberty to take action as per new act.”
Prashad had earlier told the court the state had issued 274 recovery notices, of which 38 were closed as no cases were made out against the recipients.
Titu has claimed that some of the notices were sent to people unconnected with the anti-CAA protests, and cited the example of a 94-year-old man who had died six years earlier, and two others in their 90s.
