Behind the headlines in recent news, the Supreme Court of India has shown its dissatisfaction over scenarios involving rioting and destruction of public property. The principal legal document that addresses such issues in the country is the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, which, despite being firmly established, has witnessed a failure in repressing incidents of vandalism, arson, and riotous behavior during protests throughout the country.
Understanding the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984
The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 seeks to punish those who “commit mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property” by imposing a jail term that extends up to five years, along with a fine, or both. The provisions of this law are interpreted in conjunction with those under the Indian Penal Code. This Act, in a broad sense, categorizes public property as any installation, building, or property connected with the supply, production, or distribution of energy, water, or light; any factory, mine or oil installation; sewage works; means of transport or telecommunications, and the like.
2007’s Suo Motu Cognizance and the Consequent Committees
In 2007, the Supreme Court exhibited proactive behavior on the issue of destruction to both public and private properties. It set up two committees – the Thomas Committee and the Nariman Committee – with the purpose of suggesting amendments to the existing law.
Exploring the Recommendations of the Thomas Committee
Former apex court judge Justice K T Thomas helmed the Thomas Committee. It proposed that for a successful prosecution, there should be substantial proof that an organization had called for direct action leading to damage to public property and that the accused had been involved in this action. The suggestion was accepted by the court, leading to an amendment allowing the court to presume guilt of the accused in cases of damaging public property, open to rebuttal. This method of reversing burden of proof is frequently seen in sexual violence cases.
The Nariman Committee’s Contribution
The Nariman Committee, led by senior advocate Fali Nariman, concentrated on formulating ways of extracting damages for destruction. The Supreme Court endorsed these recommendations and passed a ruling that instigators of riots should be held strictly accountable for their actions, and compensation for damage inflicted must be collected from them.
Table of Some Facts
| Year | Event | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 1984 | Implementation of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act | Legal framework against destruction of public property |
| 2007 | Suo motu cognizance taken by Supreme Court | Thomas and Nariman Committees formed to suggest law changes |
| Present | Rioting and public property destruction issues | Supreme Court directed HC to take action |
A Look at Future Directions
Even after the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines, their magnitude of impact seems limited. Problems arise especially in leaderless protests where the identification of protesters is challenging. Even if a person has been identified, he or she could escape liability for loss of property without solid evidence linking him or her to violent activities.
