Upholding the law

The Supreme Court has shown the rule book to the Uttar Pradesh Government, and corrected a wrong, by asking it to return the penalty recovered for destruction of property during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019. The unjust enrichment, as the top court put it, went against two of its judgments of 2009 and 2018 that any such recovery should be initiated only by judicial tribunals under the supervision of the high court, not bureaucrats working on the directions of the government of the day. The idea, the Bench said, was to fix accountability for damage of public property, which has to be safeguarded, but with a judicial mind overseeing it so that the process could be both fair and independent.

The overreach and undue zeal shown by the government to act against the protesters, without following the procedures laid down, had cast a shadow of intimidation and injustice, with complaints of notices being issued arbitrarily. In March 2020, the Allahabad High Court had to intervene following the state government’s controversial move to put up hoardings with pictures, names and addresses of several anti-CAA protesters across Lucknow, holding them liable for damage to property.

While sending notices and collecting fines, what should have been a judicial process, with hearings, became an administrative process. The result was that the administration played the roles of complainant, adjudicator and prosecutor, undermining the very essence of the recovery proceedings. The government has been told that it is free to initiate fresh adjudication under the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act 2020, which provides for setting up of claims tribunals. The state’s contention that a refund of damages would send a wrong message on deterrence was also rightly denied, highlighting the supremacy of the law.