Allahabad HC Allows Withdrawal Of Pleas Against 'Name & Shame Ordinance' With Liberty [Read Order]

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh has however granted liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh plea challenging the Act, if and when it is passed.

"The Chief Standing Counsel informed the Court that the Bill has been passed by both the houses and has been placed before the Governor for final approval," Petitioner's counsel told LiveLaw.

The Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Properties Bill, 2020 on August 22. The same is pending approval of Governor Anandiben Patel.

The Petitioners herein, two practicing Advocates of the High Court along with a social activist and a journalist, had challenged the Ordinance passed by th UP Government to recover damages from the alleged wrongdoers, for destruction/damaging of public and private property, and also provides for publication of personal details.

The Ordinance was passed in March this year in the aftermath of violent anti-CAA protests, that led to massive destruction of public and private properties in the capital city, Lucknow.

Prior to promulgation of the ordinance, the UP Govt had erected banners in public places displaying the names, photographs and addresses of persons accused of committing violence during anti-CAA protests.

After drawing flak from the High Court which questioned the legality of such actions, the Government came out with the Ordinance, which has now been given the shape of a Bill (apparently with significant changes). A copy of the Bill is presently not available in public domain.

The present plea had been filed through Advocates Shashwat Anand and Ankur Azad, stating that this field is already covered by the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, and that the impugned Ordinance is repugnant to the same, and as such is void to the extent of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution.

Advocate Shashank Shri Tripathi, who had also challenged the Ordinance in a separate writ petition, asserts that the Ordinance is an attempt to give "post-facto validity" to the recovery notices issued by adjudicating authorities to anti-CAA protesters.

With the passing of the Bill however, these petitions became infructuous and in terms of the liberty granted by the Court, the Petitioners may challenge the legality of the Act.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order