STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH vs HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ALLAHABAD, U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 257

UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ALLAHABAD, U. P. – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Tushar Mehta, SG Raghvendra Singh, AG, Abhinav Agrawal, Anshu Davar, Alakh Alok Srivastava, Sujit Kumar Jha, Dhawal Uniyal, Garima Prashad, Advocates
For the Intervener(s) :A.M. Singhvi, Sanjay Hegde, Saif Mahmood, Talha Rahman, Yashab Rizvi, Udit, Shaz Khan, Shadan Farasat, C.U. Singh, Prashanto Sen, Talha A. Rahman, Yashab Husain Rizvi, Shaz Khan, Udit Kokanthankar, Colin Gonsalves, Siddharth Seem, Satya Mitra, Aman Khan, S.G. Hasnain, Yasir Rauf, Aftab Ali Khan, Ali Safeer Farooqui, Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Syed Fazal, Syed Imtiyaz Ali, Tauqeer Ahmad Khan, Arvind Kumar Kanva, Syed Mansoor Ali Rizvi, Mumtaz Alam Siddiqui, Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, Aakarsh Kamra, Mehmood Pracha, Mansoor Ali, Varun Thakur, Fajal Khan, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocates

ORDER

1. This Special Leave Petition arises out of Order dated 09.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Public Interest Litigation No.532 of 2020. The Public Interest Litigation arose out of Suo Moto action taken by the High Court and the background facts as noted by the High Court in its Order are as under:

“In this public interest writ proceedings undertaken by the Court at its own, the simple question is the legitimacy of the display of photographs, name and address of certain persons by the district administration and police administration of the city of Lucknow through banners. The banners came up at a major road side with personal details of more than 50 persons those accused of vandalism during protest in the month of December, 2019. The poster is seeking compensation from the accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they failed to pay compensation.”

2. After considering the matter, the High Court concluded as under:

“We have examined the action of the State under consideration in the instant matter by the touch stones aforesaid. So far as legality part is concerned, suffice to state that no law is in existence permitting the Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 257

UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSESTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – AppellantVersusHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ALLAHABAD, U. P. – Respondent

UDAY UMESH LALIT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Appellant
Versus
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL ALLAHABAD, U. P. – Respondent