GS-2, GS-3, Uncategorized

Destruction of public property: What the law says

Why need to read?

Despite a law against the destruction of property, incidents of rioting, vandalism, and arson have been common during protests across the country.

Important for: GS Paper 3 (Internal Security), Public Administration Paper 2 (Law and Order)


What the law says

The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 punishes anyone “who commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property” with a jail term of up to five years and a fine or both. Provisions of this law can be coupled with those under the Indian Penal Code.

Meaning of Public Property:

Public property under this Act includes “any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy; any oil installation; any sewage works; any mine or factory; any means of public transportation or of telecommunications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith”.

What the SC said

  1. Thomas Committee recommendations

The Thomas Committee recommended reversing the burden of proof against protesters.

Accepting the suggestion, the court said that the prosecution should be required to prove that public property had been damaged in direct action called by an organisation, and that the accused also participated in such direct action.

From that stage the burden can be shifted to the accused to prove his innocence, the court said.

It added that the law must be amended to give the court the power to draw a presumption that the accused is guilty of destroying public property, and it would then be open to the accused to rebut such presumption.

Such a reversal of the burden of proof is applicable in cases of sexual violence, among others. Generally, the law presumes that the accused is innocent until the prosecution proves its case.

  1. Nariman Committee’s recommendations

These recommendations dealt with extracting damages for destruction.

Accepting the recommendations, the court said the rioters would be made strictly liable for the damage, and compensation would be collected to “make good” the damage.

“Where persons, whether jointly or otherwise, are part of a protest which turns violent, results in damage to private or public property, they will be deemed to be strictly liable for the damage so caused.

The damage may be assessed by the ordinary courts or by any special procedure created to enforce the right.

Impact of guidelines

Like the law, the guidelines too, have had a limited impact. This is because the identification of protesters remains difficult, especially in cases where there is no leader who gave the call to protest.

In 2017, a petitioner who claimed he was forced to spend more than 12 hours on the road on account of an ongoing agitation, moved the Supreme Court seeking implementation of the 2009 guidelines.

In its verdict in Koshy Jacob vs Union Of India, the court reiterated that the law needed to be updated — but it did not grant the petitioner any compensation since the organisers of the protest were not before the court.

Thank you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s