The direction was passed by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant after the Uttar Pradesh government on Friday told the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn the show cause notices sent to anti-CAA protesters for damage recovery.
The plight of the protesters was highlighted by advocate Nilofar Khan who cited a report from the Indian Express to claim that “poor were made to pay damages” by selling their essentials.
However, the Court while directing refund made it clear that the State can proceed against the protesters by issuing fresh notices as per the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act, 2021.
“The State as clarified is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law that is the State legislation of 2021,” the Court said.
The damages to be recovered can be claimed afresh by the State depending on the outcome of the proceedings before the claims tribunals under the 2021 Act, the Court added.
“There shall be a refund of the damages recovered in the meantime. However it will be subject to the decision of the claims tribunal,” the order said.
The Court was hearing a plea by one Parwaiz Arif Titu seeking quashing of notices sent to alleged protesters by the district administration for recovering losses caused to public properties during the anti-CAA agitations.
Additional Advocate General Garima Prashad said that the State has honoured Court’s earlier observations and decided to withdraw the notices.
“We have honoured the courts observations. All show cause notices have been withdrawn. District magistrates were also informed,” Prashad submitted.
The Supreme Court had during the previous hearing on February 11 had taken exception to certain notices sent by the Uttar Pradesh government.
These notices were sent prior to the 2021 Act came into force. Hence, it did not have statutory backing.
Further, the Court had opined that the notices and the action pursuant to the same were not in consonance with the directions issued by the top court earlier in a 2009 judgment.
“You have become complainant, you have become adjudicator and then you are attaching property of the accused,” the had Court said on February 11 referring to the fact that the decision on the notices were being taken by executive officers and not judicial officers.
Source: Barandbench
