Destruction of Public Property During Protests: Supreme Court Demands Legislative Action

The issue of public property destruction during protests and agitations has been a recurring concern in India. The Supreme Court, in the case of Koshy Jacob v. Union of India & Ors., addressed the failure of authorities to implement effective measures to prevent such destruction. The petitioner, Koshy Jacob, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking the enforcement of guidelines previously laid down in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re (2009) 5 SCC 212.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, an advocate, suffered personally due to an ongoing agitation that blocked roads, forcing him to spend over 12 hours on the road while trying to reach home after being discharged from the hospital following surgery. His petition emphasized that the frequent occurrence of violent protests leads to the destruction of public and private property, infringing on the fundamental rights of citizens.

Despite the Supreme Court’s previous recommendations to hold those responsible accountable, there had been no legislative action. The petition sought the implementation of those guidelines and the introduction of legal mechanisms to penalize organizers of violent agitations.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court observed that despite several recommendations, no statutory amendments had been made to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The Court noted that public protests often escalate into violence, leading to significant loss and damage. Referring to its earlier judgment, the Court emphasized the necessity of legal reforms.

Government’s Response

The Union of India submitted that it had initiated steps to amend the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice. A draft had been published for public comments. The government also sent a letter to all states and Union Territories advising them to take preventive measures, including:

Videography of all protest activities.
Ensuring law enforcement officials closely monitor demonstrations.
Holding protest organizers accountable for damages.
Providing police with authority to intervene before violence erupts.
Setting up mechanisms to recover compensation from those responsible for damage.

Supreme Court’s Directives

The Court reiterated its previous guidelines and emphasized their immediate enforcement until formal legislation is enacted. These include:

Organizers must meet with police to plan the protest route and agree on safety measures.
Weapons, including sticks and lathis, must be strictly prohibited.
Organizers must provide an undertaking ensuring a peaceful protest.
Videography of protests should be conducted at key locations.
The Superintendent of Police (SP) or the highest-ranking officer should supervise large-scale demonstrations.
If protests turn violent, police should use private operators and media to collect video evidence.
The government must prepare and submit reports on damages, leading to suo motu action by the courts.

Attorney General’s Submissions

Attorney General K.K. Venugopal acknowledged that peaceful protests often turn violent, resulting in loss of lives and property. He supported the need for:

Fixing accountability for failures in preventing violence.
Establishing legal consequences for protest leaders and organizers.
Creating mechanisms for compensating victims of property damage.

Legal Framework and Recommendations

The Supreme Court referred to committee reports proposing amendments to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, including:

Placing the burden of proof on accused individuals once the prosecution establishes damage occurred during an agitation.
Holding leaders of organizations accountable for damages if their protest call leads to destruction.
Allowing courts to presume guilt unless the accused proves they took reasonable steps to prevent violence.

The Court noted that these recommendations had been pending for over eight years without implementation.

Supreme Court’s Final Judgment

The Supreme Court expressed hope that the government would enact necessary amendments soon. It also suggested appointing judicial officers to handle such cases efficiently.

Regarding the petitioner’s grievance, the Court observed that the organizers of the protest were not party to the case. It advised the petitioner to seek relief through appropriate legal channels.

Conclusion

The judgment underscores the need for legislative action to prevent property destruction during protests and ensure accountability. The Supreme Court’s directive for immediate implementation of guidelines highlights the urgency of addressing this issue through legal reform.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Koshy Jacob vs Union of India & Ors Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 28-11-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Adarsh Kumar Goel
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category