In Parwaiz Arif Titu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Bench comprising of Justices Dr. DY Chandrachud and Mr. Surya Kant ordered that recoveries made by the UP government, in pursuance of the show cause notices issued on account of alleged disfigurement of the public property during protests staged against the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, shall be refunded.
Shortly after the Uttar Pradesh government told the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn all recovery notices issued to alleged anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protesters after a directions from the apex court, initiated fresh proceedings against some of the alleged accused as reported on March 9, 2022.
In late December, 2019, the Uttar Pradesh government announced its decision to ask alleged vandals, even before their guilt has been proven, to pay damages or face the seizure of their properties. Notices were promptly issued to over 130 people accused of rioting, to pay up around Rs 50 lakh in damages. Members of the legal fraternity questioned the legality of such a move, as The Wire had reported then. The Adityanath government eventually issued 274 notices, out of which recovery orders were passed in 236 while 38 cases were closed.
The UP government issued 274 show cause notices in total, to seek recovery due to the disfigurement of public properties in various parts of the State, during the anti-CAA protests staged in December 2019.
The petitioner challenged the notices on procedural grounds that:
- The guidelines propounded in Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, and
- Even though the procedure is based on the decision rendered in Mohammad Shujauddin v. State of U.P., the said decision also ordered compliance with the requirements stated in Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh.
State’s contentions:
The State, while opposing the order for the refund of recoveries, contended that:
- The refund along with the release of attachments would be a difficult practice when the Model Code of Conduct is already in force.
- The order for the refund will send a wrong message as the deterrence will fade away.
The contentions put forward by State were rejected on the ground that the Model Code of Conduct cannot be a hurdle in the enforcement of the law. With respect to the second contention of the State, the Court rejected the same while stating that if such refund of recoveries will not be ordered, then a wrong message will go out for sure, as the procedure resorted by the State was illegal and did not align with the ‘due process of law’. The Court described the procedure as not in line with the ‘due process of law’ because the State followed its own procedure without paying any heed to the relevant judgments passed by the Supreme Court.
Such refund of recoveries shall be made in a manner not prejudicial to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Also, the orders for recoveries were made on account of show cause notices for disfigurement of the public property, prior to the enactment of the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damage to Public and Private Property Act, 2020. However, the order for the refund of recoveries was made after the enactment of the said Act and therefore, the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act shall be responsible to deal with these proceedings.
About the author
