File response on plea challenging constitutional validity of law to recover losses to properties during protests: HC to UP govt

Image
Press Trust of India Allahabad
Last Updated : Mar 18 2020 | 6:48 PM IST

The Allahabad High Court on Wednesday directed the Uttar Pradesh government to file its response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the recently promulgated Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Properties Act.

A bench of Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Samit Gopal passed the order while hearing the petition filed by advocate Shashank Shri Tripathi.

In the petition it is alleged that the ordinance is a "mischief" played on the Constitution.

The court has sought the state government's reply by March 25 and fixed the next date of hearing as March 27.

Directing the state government to file the reply in the matter, the court refused to stay the operation of the Act.

The ordinance provides for the constitution of quasi-judicial bodies to assess the damages to public and private properties caused during public protests and to recover the same from the protesters.

The Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Properties Act was promulgated on March 15 after the high court came down on the state administration for erecting banners in public places displaying the names, photographs and addresses of persons accused of committing violence during anti-CAA protests.

The Act would allow the state's authorities to recover losses to public and private property caused during riots, demonstrations, political processions and illegal agitations.

It says that it will be the duty of the tribunal to determine the damages caused to public or private properties in cases and it may appoint a claims commissioner to estimate the damages and investigate liabilities.

It may appoint an assessor in every district. The claims commissioner will submit a report to the tribunal within a period of three months or such time as may be granted by the tribunal.

According to the petitioner, the law is an attempt to give post-facto validity to the recovery notices issued by adjudicating authorities to anti-CAA protesters.PTI CORR.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Mar 18 2020 | 6:48 PM IST

Next Story