Supreme Court Urges Law on Public Property Damage During Protests: Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India (28 November 2017)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 November 2017
Citation: Not Available (INSC)
Judges: Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit

What happens when protests turn violent, resulting in widespread destruction of public property and violation of citizens’ rights? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addresses the pressing issue of the lack of a specific legal framework to deal with such situations. This case highlights the need for a robust mechanism to hold those responsible accountable and provide remedies for the victims. The bench comprised of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The petitioner, an advocate, filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking the implementation of guidelines previously issued by the Supreme Court in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2009) 5 SCC 212. The petitioner was personally affected by an agitation on May 23, 2012, which forced him to spend over 12 hours on the road after being discharged from the hospital. He argued that frequent strikes and agitations lead to the destruction of public property and violate the fundamental rights of citizens, with no effective remedy available to the victims.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter and issued notices to various states and the Union of India. In response, the Union of India submitted an affidavit stating that it had initiated the process of amending the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice. A draft amendment had been prepared and published online, seeking public comments. The Union of India also sent a letter on May 6, 2013, to all States and Union Territories, advising them on actions to be taken during demonstrations.

Legal Framework

The core issue revolves around the implementation of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2009) 5 SCC 212. These guidelines were issued in the absence of a specific law to address the destruction of public and private property during agitations. The court had previously appointed committees that recommended statutory amendments to make those sponsoring agitations accountable and punishable under criminal law. These recommendations included preventive and remedial actions, such as videography of activities and compensation for damages.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that despite the recommendations of the committees and the guidelines issued by the Court, no legislation or speedy mechanism had been put in place to address the destruction of public property and the violation of fundamental rights.

The Attorney General for India, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, acknowledged that peaceful agitations often turn violent, causing loss of lives and destruction of public property. He stated that there is an urgent need for preventive and remedial measures, a mechanism to fix accountability for failures to take preventive steps, and provisions for punishing the guilty and compensating victims.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• The primary issue before the court was the lack of implementation of the guidelines issued in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2009) 5 SCC 212, and the absence of a specific law to address the destruction of public and private property during agitations.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Court considered the guidelines issued in Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2009) 5 SCC 212* and the recommendations of the committees appointed in that case. The Court noted that despite these guidelines, no specific law had been enacted. The Court also considered the submissions of the Attorney General for India, who acknowledged the need for preventive and remedial measures, accountability, and victim compensation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

The Court was concerned about the continued destruction of public property during agitations and the lack of a specific law to address this issue. The Court emphasized the need for a law that would provide for speedy mechanisms for criminal liability, action for administrative failures, and remedies for victims. The Court also took into account the submissions of the Attorney General for India, who acknowledged the need for preventive and remedial measures, accountability, and victim compensation.

The Court observed, “In spite of the guidelines, situations have been created wherein peaceful agitation turns into violent, causing loss of lives and destruction of public property.”

The Court also noted, “A mechanism is necessary to fix accountability of any failure to take preventive steps as well as to provide for punishing the guilty and compensation to the victim.”

The Court stated, “Learned Attorney General has very fairly stated that the law may provide for speedy mechanism for criminal liability, action for administrative failures as well as remedies to the victims.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the urgent need for a specific law to address the destruction of public property during agitations and protests.
• The Union of India has been urged to expedite the enactment of the proposed law, which should include provisions for criminal liability, administrative accountability, and victim compensation.
• The Court’s observations highlight the importance of preventive measures to ensure peaceful protests and the need for a robust mechanism to hold those responsible for violence and destruction accountable.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to bring the proposed law into force within a reasonable time. The Court also suggested that the law may provide for a speedy mechanism for criminal liability, action for administrative failures, and remedies for victims. Additionally, the Court suggested that one or more district/additional district judges can be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High Court to deal with such issues.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that there is an urgent need for a specific law to address the destruction of public property during agitations and protests. The Supreme Court has urged the Union of India to enact a law that includes provisions for criminal liability, administrative accountability, and victim compensation. This case reinforces the need for a legal framework to deal with the issue of destruction of public property during agitations, as the previous guidelines issued by the Court were not sufficient.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Koshy Jacob vs. Union of India underscores the critical need for a comprehensive legal framework to address the destruction of public property during agitations. The Court’s directive to the Union of India to enact a specific law reflects the judiciary’s concern over the lack of effective measures to prevent and remedy such incidents. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing the right to protest with the need to protect public property and ensure accountability for those who cause damage.