india

Updated: Mar 09, 2020 18:22 IST

The Allahabad High Court on Monday ordered Lucknow’s District Magistrate and Commissioner of Police, to remove hoarding with photographs and addresses of alleged anti-CAA protestors, put up by the Uttar Pradesh at various places in the state capital.

The court said the state’s action amounted to “violation of Article 21 of Constitution” and “amounts to unwarranted interference in privacy of people”.

The court also said that privacy was “intrinsic component” of Part III of Constitution of India that lays down our fundamental rights relating to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of movement and protection of life and personal liberty.

“These fundamental rights cannot be given or taken away by law and laws. All the executive actions must abide by them,” the bench headed by chief justice of Allahabad high court, justice Govind Mathur, and justice Ramesh Sinha, said.

“In the instant matter the act of the district and police administration of Lucknow is alleged to be in conflict with the right of life and liberty,” the court said.

The bench also said, “The advocate general (of the state) also failed to satisfy us as to why placement of the banners is necessary for a democratic society for a legitimate aim.”

On Sunday, appearing on behalf of the state government, advocate general Raghvendra Pratap Singh had contended that the court should not interfere in such matters by taking suo moto cognizance of the government action, which was taken against those persons who damaged public and private property.

Singh had termed the act of the state government, of putting up the hoardings, as a “deterrent” so that such acts are not repeated in future.

The Court in its order observed, “The object as disclosed to us is only to deter the people from participating in illegal activities. On asking, learned Advocate General failed to satisfy us as to why the personal data of few persons have been placed on banners though in the State of Uttar Pradesh there are lakhs of accused persons who are facing serious allegations pertaining to commission of crimes whose personal details have not been subjected to publicity. As a matter of fact, the placement of personal data of selected persons reflects colourable exercise of powers by the Executive.”

The Bench while directing authorities to remove hoardings observed, “Where there is gross negligence on part of public authorities and government, where the law is disobeyed and the public is put to suffering and where the precious values of the constitution are subjected to injuries, a constitutional court can very well take notice of that at its own. The court in such matters is not required to wait necessarily for a person to come before it to ring the bell of justice. The courts are meant to impart justice and no court can shut its eyes if a public unjust is happening just before it.”

The officers have been asked to submit a compliance report by March 16, when the court will hear the matter again. The court also directed the state government not to place such banners on the road side containing personal data of individuals without authority of law.

On Saturday, the court had taken suo motu cognizance of the putting up of hoardings, and asked the district magistrate and divisional commissioner of Lucknow to inform it about the law under which such posters/hoardings were put on the streets of Lucknow.

On Sunday, the bench had pulled up the state government for putting up the hoardings and termed it as an ‘insult of state and its public.’ It said the act was “highly unjust” and that it was an absolute “encroachment” on the personal liberty of the persons concerned.

On Thursday, the police had put up several hoardings across Lucknow, identifying those accused of violence during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in December last year.

The hoardings carry the names, photographs and residential addresses of the accused and have sparked fear among those named.

The accused have also been asked to pay for the damage to public and private property within a stipulated time or have their properties seized by the district administration. .