Undeterred by the Allahabad High Court’s sharp reprimand on its politics of intimidation, naming and shaming, today’s reports indicate that now an ‘Ordinance’ will be brought in to legalise the UP state’s unlawful acts! Two days back, on March 12, in the matter of the hoardings put up by the Uttar Pradesh government of the alleged anti-Citizenship Amendment Act protestors demanding compensation for damage to property, the Supreme Court said there was no law to support that the government could put up such hoardings with the names, photographs and addresses of such persons. Instead of then dismissing the matter or endorsing the stay by the Allahabad HC, the SC referred the matter to a larger bench!
What transpired under Hitler and Goebells with the Jews in Germany
Anti-Jewish riots had convulse the German Reich (Kristallnacht) in 1938. In an organised act of nationwide violence, Nazis and collaborators burned synagogues, looted Jewish businesses, and killed dozens of Jewish people.
On November 9-10, 1938, violence against Jews broke out across the Reich. It appeared to be unplanned, set off by Germans’ anger over the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, a German embassy official in Paris at the hands of Herschel Grynszpan, a Jewish teenager. In fact, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis carefully organized the pogroms. Regional Party leaders issued instructions to their local offices, and during the following two days, Nazis and their collaborators burned over 250 synagogues, trashed and looted over 7,000 Jewish businesses, killed dozens of Jewish people, and looted Jewish cemeteries, hospitals, schools, and homes while police and fire brigades stood by.
As the violence spread, units of the SS and Gestapo arrested 30,000 German Jewish men and transferred most of them from local prisons to Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen, and other concentration camps, where hundreds died from the brutal treatment they endured.
The German government pronounced that “the Jews” themselves were to blame for the pogrom and on November 12, 1938, imposed a punitive fine of one billion Reichsmark (some 400 million US dollars at 1938 rates) on the German Jewish community. The Reich government confiscated all insurance payouts to Jews whose businesses and homes were looted or destroyed, leaving the Jewish owners personally responsible for the cost of all repairs.
In the weeks that followed, the German government promulgated dozens of laws and decrees designed to deprive Jews of their property and of their means of livelihood even as the intensification of government persecution sought to force Jews from public life and out of the country. Indeed, the effects of Kristallnacht spurred mass emigration of Jews from Germany in the months that followed.
The pogroms became known as Kristallnacht, the “Night of Broken Glass,” for the shattered glass from store windows that littered the streets.
UP 2020
Fast forward to Uttar Pradesh, India to 2020. In a bizarre twist of law and the Constitution, while appearing for the UP government, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta actually said that the hoardings bearing the names of 57 people who were alleged rioters were put up after following processes of law and especially put up as a deterrent. He also argued that once a person had been videographed to be indulging in violent activities in public places, he cannot claim protection of right to privacy! This turns on its head established and settled jurisprudence of due process, law of evidence etc.
Appearing for former IPS officer SR Darapuri whose name was published on the hoardings said that the action of the government amounted to an “appeal for lynching”, pointing out that the names of rapists or serious criminals were never published publicly by the government. “We don’t have an anarchy in the state that the government will start doing this,” he said.
Allahabad HC
The Allahabad HC had then taken suo motu cognizance of the matter on March 9 while ordering the government to take them down and calling the government’s action a “shameless and unwarranted interference in privacy.” The HC had also said that the government’s move was in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The HC judgement read, “In the present case, the cause is not about personal injury caused to the persons whose personal details are given in the banner but the injury caused to the precious constitutional value and its shameless depiction by the administration. The cause as such is undemocratic functioning of government agencies which are supposed to treat all members of public with respect and courtesy and at all times should behave in manner that upholds constitutional and democratic values.”
In response to the arbitrary and undemocratic actions of UP state government, the Allahabad High Court was compelled to take suo moto cognizance and hold hearings on Sunday, March 8. The Lucknow administration put up banners with photographs and personal details of more than 50 persons who were accused vandalism during the anti-CAA protests of December 2019. The poster is seeking compensation from the accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they failed to pay compensation.
Noticing injury to the right of privacy, the Chief Justice of this Court directed the Registry to register a petition for writ in public interest. The Commissioner of Police, Lucknow and District Magistrate, Lucknow were called upon to explain the provisions under which the banners were placed on road side that also causes interference in movement of traffic in crowded areas.
While defending the state of UP, Advocate General even challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the court and termed the state’s action to be bona fide. The Court said that this PIL resulting from its suo moto cognizance is justified given that the law is disobeyed and the public is put to suffering and where the precious values of the constitution are subjected to injuries. The Bench, led by the Chief Justice held that this incident amounted to gross negligence on part of public authorities and government and as a constitutional court it can take notice of it on its own.
The Court further held thus, “The Court in such matters is not required to wait necessarily for a person to come before it to ring the bell of justice. The Courts are meant to impart justice and no court can shut its eyes if a public unjust is happening just before it.”
The Court while emphasizing on right to privacy, stated, “In the case in hand, a valid apprehension of causing serious injury to the rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India exists which demands adequate treatment by the Court at its own. The economic status of the persons directly affected in such matters is not material. The prime consideration before the Court is to prevent the assault on fundamental rights, especially the rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court, while establishing its jurisdiction, deemed the “cause” in this case to be, “not about personal injury caused to the persons whose personal details are given in the banner but the injury caused to the precious constitutional value and its shameless depiction by the administration. The cause as such is undemocratic functioning of government agencies which are supposed to treat all members of public with respect and courtesy and at all time should behave in manner that upholds constitutional and democratic values.”
Related Articles:
No law to back your actions: SC to UP govt. defending ‘name and shame’ posters
UP govt caused “unwarranted interference in privacy”, says HC
UP govt caused “unwarranted interference in privacy”, says HC
UP police go door-to-door; puts up hoardings of alleged anti-CAA protesters in town
UP police go door-to-door; puts up hoardings of alleged anti-CAA protesters in town
UP admin sends third recovery notice for damage to property in anti-CAA protest