In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh

The decision in In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant constitutional ruling on the limits of State power, particularly in relation to the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The case arose from an unusual executive action where the State authorities publicly displayed banners containing personal details of individuals accused of vandalism during protests.

The Allahabad High Court examined whether such public disclosure, without statutory backing, could be justified in a constitutional democracy. The judgement reinforces that even actions claimed to be taken in public interest must strictly comply with constitutional safeguards.

Background and Facts of In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh Case

In December 2019, protests were held in several parts of the country against the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. During these protests in the city of Lucknow, allegations of vandalism and damage to public and private property were made against certain individuals. Proceedings were initiated by the State authorities to recover compensation from those accused of causing such damage.

In March 2020, the District Administration and the Police Administration of Lucknow installed large banners at prominent roadside locations across the city. These banners displayed photographs, names, and residential addresses of around fifty individuals alleged to be involved in vandalism during the protests. The banners were placed at busy traffic junctions and public areas, ensuring maximum visibility. This action received extensive coverage in print and digital media, drawing public attention to the identities of the individuals concerned.

The installation of these banners was not carried out under any specific statutory provision. The banners were purportedly installed as a deterrent measure, with the stated objective of discouraging damage to public property and ensuring accountability.

Taking note of the widespread public display of personal information and the serious implications it carried for individual dignity and privacy, the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter. A public interest litigation was registered, and notices were issued to the District Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow, calling upon them to justify the legal basis for their actions.

Procedural History

The proceedings were initiated through the Court’s suo motu exercise of public interest jurisdiction. The matter was placed before a Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice and another Judge for adjudication in accordance with established norms governing public interest litigation.

The State of Uttar Pradesh, through its executive authorities, filed responses opposing the maintainability of the petition as well as defending the action on merits. Several preliminary objections were raised before the Court, including objections relating to jurisdiction and the scope of public interest litigation.

Issues Before the Court

Based strictly on the pleadings and arguments, the Court in In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh considered the following issues:

1. Whether the suo motu invocation of public interest jurisdiction by the High Court was justified in the present case.
2. Whether the Allahabad High Court had territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, considering that the banners were placed in Lucknow.
3. Whether the Bench that took cognisance of the matter was competent under the norms governing public interest litigation.
4. Whether the act of displaying banners containing personal details of individuals amounted to an unwarranted interference with the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments of the State

The State authorities admitted that the banners were not installed pursuant to any express statutory provision. However, the action was defended on several grounds.

First, it was argued that public interest litigation was evolved to provide access to justice for disadvantaged sections of society who were otherwise unable to approach the courts. Since the individuals whose details were displayed were capable of agitating their own grievances, the suo motu exercise of PIL jurisdiction was said to be unjustified.

Secondly, the State contended that the entire cause of action arose within the territorial limits of Lucknow. On this basis, it was argued that the principal seat of the Allahabad High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

Thirdly, a technical objection was raised regarding the composition of the Bench. It was submitted that PIL matters could only be entertained by a Division Bench and not by a Single Judge, rendering the initiation of proceedings invalid.

On merits, the State argued that the banners were installed in good faith as a deterrent measure. According to the State, the objective was to discourage vandalism and protect public property by publicly identifying those allegedly responsible for such acts.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning in  In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Suo Motu Public Interest Jurisdiction

The Court in In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh rejected the argument that PIL jurisdiction is restricted only to cases involving economically or socially disadvantaged persons. It observed that the essence of public interest litigation lies in protecting constitutional values and preventing serious violations of fundamental rights. Where State action creates a real and substantial threat to the right to life and personal liberty, the constitutional court is empowered to intervene on its own motion.

The Court held that the public display of personal information by the State raised serious concerns regarding dignity and privacy. This justified the suo motu exercise of jurisdiction, irrespective of whether the affected individuals were capable of approaching the Court themselves.

Territorial Jurisdiction

On the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Court adopted a broad and purposive interpretation of the term “cause of action.” It held that the cause of action was not confined merely to the physical location where the banners were installed. The real issue concerned the violation of constitutional values and fundamental rights by State authorities.

The Court further noted that the State had proposed similar actions in other cities of Uttar Pradesh. Given the widespread implications of the executive action and its impact on constitutional rights, the Court held that it possessed the necessary territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

Competence of the Bench

Addressing the objection relating to the competence of the Bench, the Court clarified that while the Chief Justice had initially taken cognisance of the issue, the matter was thereafter placed before a Division Bench for final adjudication. This was in accordance with the procedural norms governing PIL matters. Consequently, the objection was found to be without merit.

Right to Privacy and State Action

The core issue before the Court was whether the State’s action amounted to an unwarranted interference with the right to privacy. The Court emphasised that privacy is an essential facet of human dignity and a foundational value of a democratic society. It referred to international human rights instruments and constitutional jurisprudence recognising privacy as an integral component of Article 21.

The Court noted that the banners disclosed sensitive personal information, including photographs and residential addresses, in crowded public spaces. Such disclosure exposed the individuals concerned to stigma, social ostracisation, and potential harm.

Crucially, the Court observed that the State had failed to demonstrate any legal authority permitting such disclosure. The banners were installed pursuant to an executive direction at best, which could not override fundamental rights. Neither the Code of Criminal Procedure nor any other statutory framework authorised the public dissemination of personal data of accused persons in this manner.

The Court applied the three-fold test governing restrictions on the right to privacy: legality, legitimacy, and proportionality. It held that the State action failed on all three counts. There was no law authorising the action, the objective claimed by the State did not necessitate such disclosure in a democratic society, and the measure adopted was disproportionate. The selective publication of personal details further indicated arbitrariness in the exercise of executive power.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the action of the State amounted to an unwarranted interference with the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh Judgement

In view of the findings, the Allahabad High Court in In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh directed the District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow Commissionerate to remove the banners from the roadside forthwith. The State Government was further restrained from placing any banners containing personal data of individuals in public spaces without authority of law.

The District Magistrate was also directed to submit a compliance report to the Court. Upon receipt of the report, the petition was to be disposed of in accordance with law.

Status of the Case

The In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh judgement of the Allahabad High Court is presently under appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The banners continue to remain subject to the outcome of the final adjudication by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

In Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. State of Uttar Pradesh stands as an important precedent in Indian constitutional law. The judgement serves as a reminder that public shaming by the State, without authority of law, is incompatible with the constitutional promise of dignity and privacy. It reinforces the idea that governance in a constitutional democracy must remain firmly anchored in the rule of law and respect for fundamental rights.

Note: This article was originally written by Garima Darda (Student, Symbiosis Law School, Pune) and first published on 19 May 2020. It was subsequently updated by the LawBhoomi team on 07 January 2026.