High Court Issues Notices On Plea Challenging Vires Of 'Madhya Pradesh Recovery Of Damage To Public & Private Property Act'

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench recently issued notice to the State in a petition challenging the vires of the MP Prevention and Recovery of Damage to Public and Private Property Act, 2021.

The petition was heard by the bench comprising Justices Vivek Rusia and AN Kesharwani .

The case made out by the Petitioner is that they've fallen victim to the arbitrary actions of the State Government in the aftermath of the Khargone Riots that took place on 10.04.2022. The claims tribunal formulated pursuant to the gazette notification issued by the State has moved against the husband of the Petitioner and an FIR has also been lodged against him. Corollary to the same, the Petitioner and her husband are now under the purview of the Act of 2021.

Elaborating on the provisions under the Act of 2021, the Petitioner is asserting that the same are ultra vires to the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.

The Petitioner has argued that the definitions expressed in the Act of 2021 such as that of a "person" are vague, leaving it wide open for gross misuse, as is being done in her case. She has further submitted that the process of filing claim laid down under Section 3(1) and 3(2) of the Act are arbitrary, hazy and against the doctrine of right to a fair trial. She has also claimed that certain provisions of the Act of 2021 are contrary to each other. For e.g., whereas Section 6(2) asks the claims tribunal to adjudicate the matter within 3 months, Section 3(1) asks the tribunal to dispose of the claims within 30 days.

The Petitioner has also pointed out the provision under Section 17, whereby the proceedings of the claim petition shall not be barred by the criminal proceedings, if any, related to the damaging act. She has argued that the said provision is in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution by creating a system for incrimination of an accused in multiple proceedings for the same action.

Adding on to the argument of double jeopardy, she has contended that the provision of claiming compensation mentioned under Section 11 of the Act of 2021 is in addition to the provision under Section 357 CrPC, thereby creating double liability upon a person for the same act. She, thus, contends that the State has deliberately created a vague and arbitrary system for the determination of liability upon the person accused.

Through her petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the Court to declare the Act of 2021 as ultra vires the Constitution and further to declare the tribunals formed as per the provisions of the Act of 2021 as unconstitutional.

The Petitioner had earlier approached the Court apprehending that she would fall victim to the demolition drive being carried out by the State after the Khargone Riots. The Court disposed of her earlier petition, after noting the assurance given by the State that no action would be taken against her without following the due process of law.

Case Title : Fareeda Bee v State of Madhya Pradesh And ors

Representations

Mr. Syed Ashhar Ali Warsi and Mr. Fahad Khan, Counsels for the Petitioner

Mr. Bhaskar Agrawal, Counsel for the State