- Any democratic nation is bound to witness protests which should not turn into damagingly violent protests leading to the loss of precious lives and properties. The onus squarely rests on the authorities, read as law and order enforcement agencies, tasked to ensure peaceful protest is not turning into a violent one. On the other hand, authoritative, autocratic, and monarchist regimes have different way to handle peaceful protests if it turns violent. Brutal force is one option to suppress the same and we have seen that happen frequently. Of course, there are enough incidents that have resulted in violence resulting in sad deaths as well. This phenomenon is observed across the world. However, each country deals with the matter differently.
PC: Nick Youngson
- The Indian citizens are used to protests of every kind, including for and against government policies bringing normal life to a standstill. Also, it is true that violent protestors usually target public properties like government vehicles, office buildings, and other structures to vent their ire. Yes, private properties to get targeted resulting in widespread damages. Vehement calls for exercising caution and upholding peace fall on deaf ears most often than not as the rampaging protestors go on the frenzied offensive. To counter as well as deter prospective offenders from perpetrating property damages whimsically, the state governments have introduced certain laws to effectively deal with the matter. Let’s delve further to comprehend the same if it’s enough.
- Indeed, the Kerala high court recently directed the People’s Front of India to deposit Rs 5.2 crore for damages incurred during the banned outfit’s flash strike on the 23rd This is a rare case of speedy remedial action to penalize the party involved in the acts of violence. No wonder, those damaging public and private property must be effectively deterred. To address the issue, the Supreme Court’s guidelines prescribed a fair procedure. HCs were empowered to initiate suo motu proceedings and appoint a judicial officer as Claims Commissioner. Kerala enacted a law in 2019 to recover damages for private property destruction but left out public property despite parties in the agitation-prone state frequently venting their ire on public property.
PC: Outlook Web Desk
- In contrast, UP’s 2020 law enables recovery of damages for both public and private property. But SC found great divergence from due process in the recovery of damages from anti-CAA protesters and directed UP to follow the law properly. The Centre’s law, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 is woefully outdated and narrowly focused on criminal prosecution. After two SC committees suggested measures giving teeth to this Act, a 2015 amendment bill suggested placing the burden of proof on the accused, fixing responsibility for organizations and office-bearers, and pegging the fine as the market value of public property damaged. However, uniform central legislation ensuring time-bound inquiry into damages, recovery of assets, and criminal prosecution of rioters is needed to act without fear or favor against vandals.
