<p>The Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law and the need to follow the right procedures by ordering the Uttar Pradesh government to return the penalty recovered for the destruction of property during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019-20. The government had seized properties of large numbers of people claiming that they should pay damages for the destruction of public property during the agitation. Large sums amounting to crores of rupees were collected after recovery notices were issued to 833 “rioters’’. This was challenged as irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory, and the court has agreed that the recoveries were violative of its judgements of 2009 and 2018. These rulings had laid down 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 court said that the State cannot act as "complainant, adjudicator and prosecutor” in the case. </p>.<p>The UP government had shown undue zeal to proceed against the protesters, inviting charges of prejudice and vindictiveness. The government’s actions took on the nature of a communal and political campaign against the minorities. In March 2020, the Allahabad High Court intervened after it was brought to its notice that the state government put up hoardings with pictures, names and addresses of several anti-CAA protesters across Lucknow, holding them liable for the destruction of property. The court banned the controversial action, calling it an unwanted intrusion into the privacy of people. It also came to be known that many people were wrongly targeted. Some of them were over 90 years of age, and one person had died six years earlier. Livelihood means of many people like rickshaws and carts were taken away on the charge of their participation in the riots without giving them a chance to reply and without the due process of law. </p>.<p>The UP government told the court that it would withdraw the procedures but would keep the recovered assets as security before launching legal measures later, but the court rejected this. The government then cited elections as a reason for not returning the seized assets, but the court said the model code of conduct did not come in the way of returning illegally-taken assets. The court stressed the need for the government to follow the due process of law in any matter related to citizens’ rights. This is important because the UP government has taken arbitrary actions directed against sections of the population on other matters also like “love jihad’’ and cow protection. It is disappointing that the government tried to avoid implementing the court’s order on unconvincing grounds, but the court did well to send a stern message to it. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law and the need to follow the right procedures by ordering the Uttar Pradesh government to return the penalty recovered for the destruction of property during the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in 2019-20. The government had seized properties of large numbers of people claiming that they should pay damages for the destruction of public property during the agitation. Large sums amounting to crores of rupees were collected after recovery notices were issued to 833 “rioters’’. This was challenged as irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory, and the court has agreed that the recoveries were violative of its judgements of 2009 and 2018. These rulings had laid down 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 court said that the State cannot act as "complainant, adjudicator and prosecutor” in the case. </p>.<p>The UP government had shown undue zeal to proceed against the protesters, inviting charges of prejudice and vindictiveness. The government’s actions took on the nature of a communal and political campaign against the minorities. In March 2020, the Allahabad High Court intervened after it was brought to its notice that the state government put up hoardings with pictures, names and addresses of several anti-CAA protesters across Lucknow, holding them liable for the destruction of property. The court banned the controversial action, calling it an unwanted intrusion into the privacy of people. It also came to be known that many people were wrongly targeted. Some of them were over 90 years of age, and one person had died six years earlier. Livelihood means of many people like rickshaws and carts were taken away on the charge of their participation in the riots without giving them a chance to reply and without the due process of law. </p>.<p>The UP government told the court that it would withdraw the procedures but would keep the recovered assets as security before launching legal measures later, but the court rejected this. The government then cited elections as a reason for not returning the seized assets, but the court said the model code of conduct did not come in the way of returning illegally-taken assets. The court stressed the need for the government to follow the due process of law in any matter related to citizens’ rights. This is important because the UP government has taken arbitrary actions directed against sections of the population on other matters also like “love jihad’’ and cow protection. It is disappointing that the government tried to avoid implementing the court’s order on unconvincing grounds, but the court did well to send a stern message to it. </p>
