Why in news? The Property Damage Ordinance will set up a compensation claims tribunal for the recovery of property losses from those accused of rioting. What is the problem with the timing of the ordinance?
 The Uttar Pradesh government has passed this ordinance a day before the Allahabad High Court‘s (HC) deadline for the district magistrate and the police to report to it on the removal of certain hoardings.
 These were ―name and shame‖ hoardings of people accused of allegedly damaging property during riots to protest the CAA.
 None of these people had gone through the legal process to establish guilt, and remain vulnerable to violence.
 So, this Ordinance is seen as an example of unique extra-judicial interpretation of the law.
What did the HC rule?
 It ruled that the state government‘s move (i.e.,) the ordinance amounted to an unwarranted interference in privacy.
 By putting up for public display the details of accused, the government violated the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
 [Article 21 – No person can be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.]
 The UP government has appealed this ruling before the SC, which, has seen fit to refer the matter to a larger bench.
What does the Ordinance say?
 The ordinance offers a smut to the spirit of the HC‘s judgment upholding the sanctity of Article 21.
 It provides that the court set up under it will be the sole institution for hearing the recovery cases; no other civil courts will hear these cases.
 The court under this ordinance can instruct the authorities to publish the details of people it has found guilty of destruction.
 In other words, the court can provide legal cover for the same ―name and shame‖ process that the high court had ruled illegal.
What precedence does the ordinance set?
 The encounter killings are also extra-judicial method of law enforcement.
 The UP government has normalised this technique in a manner that may well encourage other states to follow.
 Naming and shaming could well enjoy similar enthusiasm.

This ordinance sets a sinister precedent in a state that has scarcely been renowned for the smooth functioning of its law and order machinery.