[Breaking] Banners of Anti-CAA protestors in Lucknow: Supreme Court refers matter to larger Bench, no stay on HC order

The Supreme Court today referred the question of law in the matter regarding banners of anti-CAA protestors put up by the Uttar Pradesh Police to a larger Bench.

The Uttar Pradesh government had approached the Supreme Court in appeal against the order of the Allahabad High Court directing for removal of the "name and shame" banners of anti-CAA protesters.

The Vacation Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Aniruddha Bose held,

The Court also granted liberty to the individuals whose pictures and details appear on these banners to file applications for impleadment. There was no order for stay of the High Court's order.

When the matter was taken up today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, made submissions on the point of right to privacy on the grounds that the entire order of the Allahabad High Court hinged on this right. He said that while this right has various aspects and dimensions, there is also the aspect of waiving this right.

He went on to say that if persons have put themselves in the public gaze while doing an antisocial activity and they are videographed by the media, they cannot claim privacy.

To this, the Bench responded the main question was whether the authorities can display banners with names and faces of the people who are accused of rioting. Justice Bose said,

"State can do things permitted by law. Where is the State's power to do this?"

Justice Lalit added,

"As of now, there is no law that can back your actions."

In response, Mehta took the Court through a precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in R Rajgopal v. State of Tamil Nadu on the issue of privacy, which was affirmed by the nine-Judge Bench in the Puttaswamy judgment. Tushar Mehra also referred to a UK Supreme Court judgment on the issue of waiver of right to privacy.

Justice Lalit then went on to ask if the time granted to the alleged "rioters" for paying of compensation has lapsed. Mehta replied that the time had not lapsed, and that a challenge to the same was pending before the High Court. The judge then said that had the time lapsed, situation could be different.

The Bench went on to express its inclination to refer the matter to a larger bench, in light of a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom which has "persuasive value".