Thread by @legaljournalist

Hoardings against alleged anti-CAA protestors: Supreme Court to hear today, appeal by Yogi Adityanath govt against Allahabad High Court order which had ordered immediate removal of the banners.

Vacation Bench of Justices UU Lalit and Aniruddha Bose to hear the case.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for UP govt says case involves a question of law of seminal importance - on right to privacy.

An order was passed against 57 persons who were held to be responsible and involved in rioting (in Uttar Pradesh). These include people from 4 communities.

The Allahabad HC took suo motu cognizance and issued a direction to us based on infringement of right to privacy, says SG Tushar Mehta.

If people wield guns in public, they waive right to privacy. The K Puttaswamy judgment says so, submits Tushar Mehta.

SG Tushar Mehta says the rioters have waived their right to privacy.

An individual can do anything not prohibited by law, but a state can do only what law empowers it to. In this case is there a law? Supreme Court asks SG Tushar Mehta.

In this case, there is no backing of law, remarks Justice UU Lalit.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta citing case laws from foreign jurisdictions to make out his case.

Bench now opines that the matter should be referred to a Bench of 3 judges.

Sr. Adv. AM Singhvi appearing for a former IPS officer who is one of the persons whose name is on the banner.

The state has to show a law under which such action can be taken, says Singhvi.

Suppose we put an alleged child rapist photo like this, he is likely to be lynched if he walks on street after getting bail, says Singhvi.

Main paragraphs of Puttaswamy were not read.

Those paras cover entire gamut of personal data, privacy, human dignity, says Singhvi.

What SG read was para 5 of Puttaswamy. Law is not laid down in that para, submits Singhvi.

As against the IPS officer, he got a notice and he replied. No final order was passed against him, claims Singhvi.

What is the basis of this. It is a govt order of January 2011. It was never used (till now), says Singhvi.

I can understand a private person doing it. But how can govt do this, asks Singhvi.

This can be done to create provocation and to invite people to take law into their own hands. I will create lynch mentality, says Singhvi.

Sr Adv Colin Gonsalves says no video evidence against the accused.

I am appearing for a lawyer who has taken up cases of minorities. I was even assaulted in the Bar room once for that. Now this poster is an invitation for people to enter my house and assault me, says Gonsalves.

Bench says it is inclined to refer matter to larger bench.

Sr. Counsel says HC ordered removal of hoardings.

Have we indicated anything on that, asks Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Sr. Counsel CU Singh tells that after Puttaswamy judgment, a law is required to do it and not govt order or guideline.

The Advocate General was not able to point out any law to back the action, says Singh.

Name and shame posters: Supreme Court does not stay Allahabad High Court judgment of March 9 ordering removal.

But refers question of law to larger judge bench.

"Matter requires further elaboration and consideration", the bench says.

Supreme Court says papers to be placed before CJI so as to constitute larger bench. Also urges that matter be listed on March 16.

The High Court had asked for compliance with its order directing removal of hoardings on or before March 16.

Interestingly, the UP govt did not press the bench for a stay. The arguments of state were largely on the law and scope of right to privacy.