New Delhi: Supreme court asked on friday Answer The state government called for withdrawal of recovery notices against anti-CAA protesters and warned that it would quash proceedings for violation of the law.
The top court said that the Uttar Pradesh government itself has acted as a “complainant, judge and prosecutor” in proceeding to attach the properties of the accused.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said, “Withdraw the proceedings or we will quash it for violating the law laid down by this court.”
The Supreme Court’s observation came in response to a petition filed by Pervez Arif Titu, seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protesters by the district administration to compensate for the damage caused to public properties during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) agitation. was demanded. Uttar Pradesh.
The petition has alleged that such notices have been sent in an “arbitrary manner” against a person who died six years ago at the age of 94 as well as several others, including two persons above the age of 90 years. People were also sent.
The plea has also sought a direction to the Uttar Pradesh government to follow the procedure as per the 2009 and 2018 guidelines of the apex court while claiming damages for recovery of damages caused to public property during such protests. .
In 2019, Chief Minister of the state Yogi Adityanath It had said that the cost of damage caused to properties during the anti-citizenship law protests would be “avenged” by the fines collected from those responsible.
Show cause notices were served to over 300 people for causing damage to public property. identification on the basis of CCTV And in the video footage of the violence, the accused were asked to explain why their property should not be attached to compensate for the loss of public property. If the notices issued are unable to explain that they were not responsible for the damages, they will have to pay.
Officials said the notices were issued on the basis of a 2010 High Court order directing the state government to compensate the damage caused to public property during the violent agitation from those involved in such violent acts.
(with agency input)
The top court said that the Uttar Pradesh government itself has acted as a “complainant, judge and prosecutor” in proceeding to attach the properties of the accused.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant said, “Withdraw the proceedings or we will quash it for violating the law laid down by this court.”
The Supreme Court’s observation came in response to a petition filed by Pervez Arif Titu, seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protesters by the district administration to compensate for the damage caused to public properties during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) agitation. was demanded. Uttar Pradesh.
The petition has alleged that such notices have been sent in an “arbitrary manner” against a person who died six years ago at the age of 94 as well as several others, including two persons above the age of 90 years. People were also sent.
The plea has also sought a direction to the Uttar Pradesh government to follow the procedure as per the 2009 and 2018 guidelines of the apex court while claiming damages for recovery of damages caused to public property during such protests. .
In 2019, Chief Minister of the state Yogi Adityanath It had said that the cost of damage caused to properties during the anti-citizenship law protests would be “avenged” by the fines collected from those responsible.
Show cause notices were served to over 300 people for causing damage to public property. identification on the basis of CCTV And in the video footage of the violence, the accused were asked to explain why their property should not be attached to compensate for the loss of public property. If the notices issued are unable to explain that they were not responsible for the damages, they will have to pay.
Officials said the notices were issued on the basis of a 2010 High Court order directing the state government to compensate the damage caused to public property during the violent agitation from those involved in such violent acts.
(with agency input)
,