SC slams UP over not taking stand on restoring anticipatory

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Feb 12 2018 | 9:05 PM IST
The Supreme Court today pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government for not taking a clear stand on the issue of restoration of provision for anticipatory bail in the state that was scrapped in 1976.
The apex court was hearing a petition filed by a lawyer seeking restoration of the provision of anticipatory bail in Uttar Pradesh as its absence is "discriminatory" to the people of the state.
The top court had in 2008 recommended to Uttar Pradesh government to take appropriate steps and bring an ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail in the state.
The state government had in 2010, brought an amendment in the law to include the provision for anticipatory bail.
During the hearing today, the top court asked the state government as to why it has not placed before the Assembly 'The Code of Criminal Procedure Uttar Pradesh (Amendment) Bill, 2010' after the President had withheld the assent and sent it back in September 2011.
"You (UP) want to create some problem or the other. Are you willing to act or not," a bench comprising Justices S A Bobde and L Nageswar Rao said.
"Why the government did not discharge its constitutional duties by getting the proposal passed in the Assembly with amendment," the bench asked and directed the state to make its stand clear on the issue within two weeks.
The top court also asked the counsel representing Uttar Pradesh to inform the secretary of Law Department of the state to be present in the court on the next date of hearing so that he could explain the status.
It also asked the Centre's counsel to obtain instructions on the issue.
The bench was hearing a petition by lawyer Sanjeev Bhatnagar who has said that after the President had sent back the amendment in September 2011, the state has not done anything in the matter.
In 2010, the state government had brought Amendment Act to restore provision of section 438 of the CrPC which deals with anticipatory bail. In August 2010, the state Assembly had passed the Amendment Act to restore the provision.

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: Feb 12 2018 | 9:05 PM IST

Next Story