UP Govt.'s Appeal Against Removal Of Banners: Live-Updates From Supreme Court

Colin Gonsalves now starts.

“How do you prove if a person had damaged property?”

Lalit J. - “We are not going into that currently Mr. Gonsalves”

Singhvi says that the act of erecting “name and shame” banners is a manner of inciting people to lynch and hit the people on the hoardings.

“We don’t have an anarchy in the state that the Government will start doing this!” argues Singhvi

Singhvi continues. “Where is the final order of the authority? This is a mega-blanket approach to name and shame me!”

Singhvi says that his client on 30.12.10, got a show cause notice and he replied to it within 10 days.

Singhvi further asserts that the order which was passed by the Adjudicating authority was not a final order. This issue is “sub judice.”

Singhvi : “Someones intention might be to shame, anothers may be to lynch. How do we differentiate and how do we control?”

Singhvi: “Since when do we have in this country - that we can name and shame alleged rapists ? Alleged accused? He is liable to be lynched in such a scenario.”

Singhvi says that as a State, they have to show where this affirmative remit for the action of putting up banners come from.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi now begins.

He is appearing for one of the aggrieved, a Private party, who is also a retired IS officer.

Bench says that Since there is a Judgement which lays out the issue and the SG has read it out, we consider it appropriate to refer this to a 3-Judge Bench.