CAA Protest in UP: UP government not getting relief from Supreme Court on recovery posters, refuses to interfere in High Court verdict

Lucknow, JNN. The Supreme Court has disputed the decision of the Uttar Pradesh government in the matter of putting photo hoardings and posters of the accused of damaging government and other properties during violence in Lucknow in protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act. The Uttar Pradesh government had challenged the Allahabad High Court's order to remove hoardings and posters containing photographs of the accused who sabotaged during the violence in Lucknow.

The leave bench of Justices UU Lalit and Anirudh Bose heard the petition of the Uttar Pradesh government on Thursday. During the anti-CAA protests, the Supreme Court sent a three-judge bench for consideration of posters in Lucknow and other cities for property damage. At present, the High Court order is not stayed. The UP government had challenged the Supreme Court's order to remove the posters.

The apex court bench asked the Uttar Pradesh government under which law they had got the right to post the accused. The Supreme Court has questioned the state government's decision. The court said under which law the government put up the banner of the riot accused. Justice Anurudh Bose said that the government cannot function outside the law. The Supreme Court has referred the case to a three-judge bench. The Supreme Court has not stayed the High Court order. The court has not made any decision on whether to put up posters.

The Supreme Court said that as of now there is no such law under which pictures of alleged accused of nuisance should be placed in hoardings. The court said that photographs of more than 57 accused have been placed in hoardings and posters along the various intersections and main roads of Lucknow. After taking cognizance of this matter, the Allahabad Hoi court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to remove all hoardings and posters. The Supreme Court said that the Uttar Pradesh government has taken steps to give details of alleged arsonists on hoardings. The court can understand the state government's concern but there is no law to withdraw its decision.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that it has been argued that many protesters in the state are doing damage to public property in the open. The media made his video. Everyone watched the video. In such a situation, they cannot claim that their right to privacy has been violated by the posting of posters. Privacy has many dimensions. You cannot claim the right to privacy if you are openly waving and running a gun in the riots.

In a petition challenging the UP government's order of Allahabad High Court, SG Tushar Mehta said that a man wields a gun during protests and is allegedly involved in violence. Such a person cannot claim the right to privacy. The government had challenged the Allahabad High Court's decision in the Supreme Court in Lucknow to put up posters of protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Taking automatic cognizance of the case, the Allahabad High Court ordered the government to remove the posters of the protesters. During the protest against CAA, the case of posting of posters of violence in Lucknow reached the Supreme Court.

The leave bench of the Supreme Court heard the petition of the state government today. During the Holi holidays in the Supreme Court, the holiday bench sat for hearing of urgent (urgent) cases. This is the first time that the Supreme Court sat on a holiday during a week of Holi holidays. The holiday carpet bench used to sit only during the summer holidays.

Advocate General of Uttar Pradesh Raghavendra Pratap Singh told Dainik Jagran that the state government has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the High Court order, which is to be heard on Thursday. Referring to its grounds in the appeal, it was said that it was not right to print the name and photo in the poster as a violation of the High Court's right to privacy as the matter does not come under the purview of privacy. Right to privacy does not apply to things which are already public here. In this case, everything is already public. The second premise is to make the case a public interest litigation in the appeal. This matter cannot be treated as a PIL because the concept of PIL has been brought for those who are unable to come to court due to any reason, a PIL can be filed on their behalf. Or in cases where a large part of the population is being affected, such as public interest litigation can be done in cases like environmental protection, etc. But the present case is not so.

Advocate General said that in the current case affected people can go to court and some people have also gone to court against the recovery notice, so this case should not be heard under PIL. He did not share further details and basis of this petition. On March 9, the Allahabad High Court ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to remove the poster with immediate effect. The Allahabad High Court had said in the order that the state government has no legal right to place such posters. The High Court had also called for infringement of the right of privacy to put up the poster.