india

Updated: Mar 12, 2020 13:21 IST

The Supreme Court on Thursday did not stay the March 9 judgement of Allahabad High Court ordering removal of hoardings in UP’s capital Luckow which contained personal details of people alleged to have indulged in rioting as part of protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Act or CAA.

A bench of justices UU Lalit and Aniruddha Bose, however, said that issue requires further elaboration and consideration and referred the case to a larger bench.

“Let the papers be placed before the Chief Justice of India so that a bench of sufficient strength be constituted to hear and consider the matter,” the court said.

During the hearing, the court remarked that there is no law which empowers the state to resort to such action.

“An individual can do anything not prohibited by law, but a state can do only what law empowers it to. In this case, is there a law?” Justice Bose asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who appeared for Uttar Pradesh government.

The high court bench of chief justice Govind Mathur and Justice Ramesh Sinha had on Monday ruled that the state government’s action to erect banners at various places in Lucknow with personal details of alleged anti-CAA protesters amounted to infringement of privacy of such persons.

Privacy is an intrinsic part of right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the actions of the state government amount to an unwarranted interference with the same, it had said directing the District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police to remove the banners immediately and submit a compliance report to the court on or before March 16.

The Uttar Pradesh Police had, on March 5, put up several hoardings across Lucknow, identifying those accused of violence during the protests that took place against the CAA in December last year.

The names, photographs and residential addresses of the accused were on the hoardings leading to safety concerns among those who figured on the hoardings. The accused were also asked to pay for the damage to public and private property within a stipulated time or have their properties seized by the district administration.

The high court had, on March 7, registered a suo motu public interest litigation in this regard and asked the district magistrate and police commissioner of Lucknow to give details about the law under which such posters/hoardings were put up.

During the hearing which followed on March 8, the court had pulled up the state government for putting up such hoardings and termed it as an ‘insult of state and its public’, ‘highly unjust’ and an “encroachment” on the personal liberty of the persons concerned.

Advocate General Raghvendra Pratap Singh, appearing on behalf of the state government, had argued that the court should not interfere in such matters by taking suo moto cognizance.

The high court, however, did not take state’s argument questioning its jurisdiction favourably.

“Courts are meant to impart justice and no court can shut its eyes if a public unjust is happening just before it”, the order said.

When constitutional values are at stake, it said, the high court can take suo motu cognizance and need not wait for some person to come before it and “ring the bell of justice”.

The high court, while arriving at its decision, had also taken note of the fact there was no law which entitled the state government to resort to such an action.

“So far as legality part is concerned, suffice to state that no law is in existence permitting the State to place the banners with personal data of the accused from whom compensation is to be charged”, the court said.

The high court had also brushed aside the government’s argument that the hoardings were meant to act as a ‘deterrent’ so that such acts are not repeated in the future.

The court said that while the state is entitled to take actions for maintenance of law and order, it should not come at the cost of fundamental rights of people.

“No doubt the state can always take necessary steps to ensure maintenance of law and order but that cannot be by violating fundamental rights of people”, the high court had said.