On Friday, the Supreme Court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to refund crores of rupees that were recovered from anti-CAA protesters of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in view of proceedings initiated in 2019. Â
This order came in response to the UP government’s withdrawal of 274 recovery notices to pay damages for the destruction caused to public property during protests against the CAA act in December 2019.
These notices were issued prior to the enactment of a 2020 law laying down the recovery procedure specifying that the tribunals constituted under the new Act will deal with the issue afresh. Â
The bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Surya Kant accepted the submission and directed the state government to refund the recovery already made under the withdrawn proceedings.
The state government urged the court for the status quo, saying that a refund would send a wrong message on deterrence, but the bench said that when a proceeding itself is withdrawn, all actions consequent to it will have to go. Â
On February 11, the Supreme Court pulled up the UP government for acting on the recovery notices issued to the alleged anti-CAA protesters in December 2019 and gave one final opportunity to it to withdraw the proceedings. If it failed to do so, the top court would quash the proceedings for being in violation of the law. Â
The top court said that the proceedings initiated in December 2019 were contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and cannot be sustained. Â
The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by one 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 agitations in UP and asked the state to respond to it.Â
The plea said such notices were sent to even a person who had died six years ago at the age of 94 and also to several others, including two people who are aged above 90. Â
Advocate Nilofer Khan, appearing for the petitioner, told the apex court that it was reported in the media that rickshaw puller, vegetable seller, milkman, and other small vendors were victimized, and they had to sell everything to pay the damages. Â
Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad, appearing for Uttar Pradesh, vehemently opposed this statement by saying that in view of the Model Code of Conduct being in force in the state, the refund, as well as the release of attachments, would be difficult.
Justice Chandrachud asked her how MCC could come in the way of enforcing the law and ordered a refund of the damages recovered.
Published By: Jaspreet Singh
Edited By: Kritika Kashyap
