Recovery of Damage to Public and Private Property during Anti-CAA Riots

A new law in Uttar Pradesh has been notified by the State Government to recover compensation from those people who had participated in damaging the public and private properties during the protests, riots and rallies in the matter related to the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019(CAA). The State Government of Uttar Pradesh moved to pass the Ordinance called the “Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damage to Public and Private Property Ordinance, 2020” to provide the State with a stringent law for recovering compensation from those who damaged the properties in the anti-CAA protests.

How can one claim compensation?

In case of a private property, the owner of such property and in case of a public property, the head of the concerned office may file claim(s) for compensation within three months of any such incident which had caused any damage during public protests, riots, rallies or bandhs. The claim can site those who instigated such acts or committed such acts that caused the damage, as respondents or the claim can also be filed against those who are named by the police in the riots. Most importantly, the claims filed for the compensation would not only cover the damage to public and private properties but it would also cover the costs borne by the police and respective administrations in taking preventive measures.

Where can the claim be filed?

The Ordinance provides for setting up of Tribunal to receive the claims for compensation that will be authorized to investigate the received complaints and assess the damage accordingly. A retired District judge would be the chairperson of the Claims Tribunal and other members would be of the rank of additional commissioner. The Claims Tribunal would have all the powers of a civil court along with the power to attach the property of the respondent and publicize their names, addresses, and photographs to warn the public against purchasing the property under Section 19(2) of the Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that the orders passed by the Claims Tribunal would be a final one and no appeal arising out of it would be maintainable before any other court.

This Ordinance was passed by the UP State Government just a week after the Allahabad High Court had blamed the authorities for violating the right to privacy by displaying banners bearing the names and photographs of persons alleged to damage the property in anti-CAA riots as “name and shame” step taken by them.

In view of this, the Ordinance and particularly Section 19(2) was challenged in a petition before the Allahabad High Court claiming that the Ordinance is a move by the State Government to play a mischief upon the constitution and to evade from justifying itself in the court of law.

A famous doctrine of constitution i.e. Doctrine of Colourable Legislation is based on the maxim that what cannot be done directly cannot also be done indirectly. The doctrine becomes applicable when a legislature seeks to do something in an indirect manner when it cannot do it directly. Therefore, this doctrine applies aptly in this case.

Apart from this, the petition challenges the setting up of the Claims Tribunal i.e. it is beyond the Ordinance and violates Article 323B of the Indian Constitution, appointment of the chairman of the Tribunal, etc.

The petitioner Shashank Tripathi prays for the stay of the Ordinance during the time the “name and shame” matter is pending.

-Ayushi Mishra

Student Reporter, INBA