Supreme Court reprimands UP government, says take recovery notice against anti-CAA protesters, otherwise we will cancel

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to withdraw the recovery notices issued against those involved in anti-CAA protests. The court said that if the state government takes action on the notice issued in December 2019, then it will be a criticism of the court. The court has given the last chance to withdraw the recovery notice. Also warned that failing to do so, the court would cancel it itself.

The Court observed that the action taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in December 2019 was contrary to the law laid down by the Court and cannot be sustained. A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant observed that the Uttar Pradesh government itself has acted as a “complainant, adjudicator and prosecutor” in the proceedings to attach the properties of the accused.

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Pervez Arif Titu. In which there was a demand to quash the notices sent by the district administration to the alleged protesters to compensate for the damage caused to public properties during the anti-Citizenship Act (CAA) agitation in Uttar Pradesh. It has been alleged in the petition that these notices have been sent arbitrarily by the government. It is being told that the government has also sent a notice to the person who died at the age of 94 six years ago. Along with this, notices were also sent to many other people including two people above the age of 90 years.

At the same time, Additional Advocate General Garima Prasad, appearing for the UP government, said that a total of 106 FIRs were registered against 833 rioters in the state. 274 recovery notices have been issued against him. He said that, ‘Out of 274 notices, orders for recovery were passed in 236, while 38 cases were closed. was done. It is headed by a retired District Judge.

Significantly, on July 9 last year, the Supreme Court had asked the UP government not to act on the first notices sent by the district administration to alleged protesters seeking recovery of damages caused to public property during anti-CAA agitations in the state. But the court had also said that the state can act according to the law and according to the new rules.