UP Govt.'s Appeal Against Removal Of Banners: Live-Updates From Supreme Court
A vacation bench of Supreme Court is hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the March 6 judgment of Allahabad High Court which directed the forthwith removal of the banners erected by the UP administration in Lucknow revealing the pictures, identities and addresses of persons alleged of committing violence during anti-CAA...
A vacation bench of Supreme Court is hearing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the March 6 judgment of Allahabad High Court which directed the forthwith removal of the banners erected by the UP administration in Lucknow revealing the pictures, identities and addresses of persons alleged of committing violence during anti-CAA protests.
Bench directs the matter to be referred to a larger Bench.
Singhvi, at this juncture seeks liberty for impleadment.
Bench - “Liberty granted to those individuals whose names appear in the hoardings for impleadment”
“Submissions put forth by rival sides.
Since the matter involves issues which need further consideration by a bench if sufficient strength...”
“We direct, let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble CJI so that the a bench of sufficient strength consider the matter in the coming week...”
Bench is now dictating orders.
“The HC of Allahabad had considered the issue and laid out directions.
With the assistance of the learned counsel, we were taken through Puttaswamy and Rajagopalan. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the UK by the SG....”
Singh: “In today’s date, when the vindictive approach of the state govt. is so outright and a section of people are being targeted....”
Justice Lalit interjects Singh and says we are not on this aspect Mr. Singh.
“The source of such power - to pit up hoardings - has to emanate from a law, not from guidelines or executive orders” asserts Singh
Singh says he would like to point out, the aspect of invasion of privacy and the rational nexus with the law which is pertinent to establish the source of such power.
Senior Advocate CU Singh now begins.
Singh says he would like to point out, the aspect of invasion of privacy and the rational nexus with the law which is pertinent to establish the source of such power.
At this juncture, Lalit J. states that they have made up their mind that the matter should be listed to a larger bench, subject to orders of the CJI.
“I am appearing for one, Md. Shoaib. I have taken case after case for the minorities. I have been assaulted and lyched. Why? Because my picture is there on the hoardings”
Gonsalves concludes
“Various details are required to be spelt out to prove this. Moreover,
there is no video testimony against a single person on the hoardings” Gonsalves