From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Uttar Pradesh government to restore the attached properties of the anti-CAA protesters and refund the money recovered from them for damages to the public properties.
In response to UP’s additional advocate general Garima Prashad telling the court at the outset that the state government has withdrawn the notices sent to the protesters to recover damages to the properties, a Bench of Justices D Y handrachud and Surya Kant said if the notices have been withdrawn, the recoveries made following the notices be paid back.
The Uttar Pradesh government has issued two government orders (GOs) on February 14 and 15, 2022, withdrawing all show cause notices, which were issued in 274 cases in the destruction of public and private properties during the anti-CAA protest. Its new law — Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act, 2020 — empowers the state government to set up tribunals to decide claims for damage to property.
On February 11, the top court had told the Uttar Pradesh government to withdraw these notices, otherwise it would quash them. Citing the top court’s verdicts in 2009 and 2018, the bench said judicial officers should have been appointed in claim tribunals, but the state government has appointed Additional District Magistrates.
Prashad pleaded a status quo in connection with the protesters’ properties attached in the matter. Advocate Nilofar Khan, representing the petitioner, said there were many people, including vegetable sellers, rickshaw pullers, etc., from whom recoveries have been made following these notices and the state government should issue refunds, after withdrawal of these notices.
Justice Chandrachud, however, put a rider on refund of the damages, saying it will be subject to the claims tribunal, under the new law. On the state government’s lawyer repeatedly pleading to maintin status quo since certain properties have been already taken into custody by the state government, Justice Chandrachud said if the attachment was done against the law and if such orders have been recalled, how can attachment continue.
He also rejected the argument of the model code of conduct of the Election Commission was in force. “When you have to implement a judgment of the Supreme Court, how does the model code of conduct stop you,” he shot back.
Prashad said the court order should not impact the deterrence, citing how there has been no law to order incident in the state in the past two years. The Court was, however, not convinced with her arguments. On her arguing that the entire law will be frustrated, if the refund is ordered, Justice Chandrachud said: “No, law cannot be frustrated…as you bought a new law. All deference against the evasion of law has to be within four corners of law and it cannot lie outside the four corners of the law.”
