ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad High Court on Sunday said the decision of the Lucknow district administration to put up hoardings with names, photos and addresses of 53 anti-CAA protestors, was an ‘absolute encroachment on personal liberty.’
A bench headed by Chief Justice Govind Mathur, which heard the case on an urgent basis on Sunday after taking suo moto cognisance of the matter, however, delivered an oral observation, while reserving the verdict for pronouncement at 2 pm on Monday.
During the hearing at 10 am, the bench questioned the administration as to under which law the hoardings were put up while asking the government to answer by 3 pm.
Opposing the high court’s intervention in the case, Advocate General Raghvendra Singh, who appeared on behalf of the Lucknow administration, said such PILs should not be entertained to protect those who break the law.
According to lawyers, who appeared in the case, the bench did not seem convinced with the state government’s response and reserved the verdict.
On Saturday, advocate Shashank Tripathi had filed a PIL against the hoardings after the state government put up photos with home addresses of those accused of violence during the anti-CAA protests at strategic traffic points in the capital city.
The hoardings included pictures of Shia cleric Maulana Saif Abbas, retired IPS officer Darapuri and Congress leader Sadaf Jafar, all of whom were named as accused in the violence that swept the state capital on December 19 last year.
All of them are out on bail and have said they will contest any move by the government to attach their properties.
The administration has assessed the damage to be worth `1.55 crore at Parivartan Chowk and the old city area.
The hoardings also talk about recovering the damage to properties from the protesters.
Bench reserves verdict for today
Opposing the high court’s intervention in the matter, Advocate General Raghvendra Singh, who appeared on behalf of the Lucknow administration, said such PILs should not be entertained to protect those who break the law.
However, the bench did not seem convinced with the state government’s response and reserved the verdict for 2 pm on Monday.