Constitution of India: Art. 32 – Eruption of mob violence, protests and demonstrations across the nation in the recent past, against cultural programmes and establishments – Resulting in damage to public and private properties arising out of such violence – Submission that law and order problems arose out of the release of several films, especially film Padmaavat – PIL seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to strictly follow and implement the guidelines formulated by this Court in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case to prevent destruction of public and private properties in mass protests and demonstrations – Held: These acts of violence highlight a deeper malaise, one of intolerance towards others‘ views which then results in attempts to suppress alternate view points, artistic integrity and the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution – Nobody has the right to become a self-appointed guardian of the law and forcibly administer his or her own interpretation of the law on others, especially not with violent means – Dispensation for preventing occurrences of such crimes or remedial measures and punitive measures would vest in the same police in the State – Therefore, comprehensive structure to be evolved in the respective States so that the issues of accountability and efficiency in curbing incidents of peaceful protests turning into mob violence, causing damage to property including investigation, remedial and punitive measures, are duly addressed – Dispensation can be similar to Tehseen Poonawalla case – Recommendations in addition to In Re Destruction of Public and Private Properties case, issued under the following heads: structural and preventive measures, remedies to minimize the impending mob violence, liability of person causing violence, responsibility of police officials and compensation – Central and State governments to implement the recommendations within the stipulated period.
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is a disconcerting rise in the protests and demonstrations by private entities targeting, amongst others, exhibition of films and social functions and including sections of people, on moral grounds, in particular, using threats and actual violence. In addition to being patently illegal and unlawful, such acts of violence highlight a deeper malaise, one of intolerance towards others‘ views which then results in attempts to suppress alternate view points, artistic integrity and the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Indeed, the people who perpetrate such actions, especially against private parties, do so without fear of consequence and reprisal, probably believing that private parties do not have the wherewithal to hold them accountable for such actions. In such situations, the State must step in and perform its duty by taking measures to prevent such actions from occurring in the first place, ensuring that lawenforcement agencies exercise their power to bring the guilty parties to book and imposing time-bound and adequate punishment for any lapses. This Court has time and time again underscored the supremacy of law and that one must not forget that administration of law can only be done by law-enforcing agencies recognised by law. Nobody has the right to become a self-appointed guardian of the law and forcibly administer his or her own interpretation of the law on others, especially not with violent means. Mob violence runs against the very core of our established legal principles since it signals chaos and lawlessness and the State has a duty to protect its citizens against the illegal and reprehensible acts of such groups. [Para 7] [723-C-D; 724A-D]
1.2 There is a broad consensus that the recommendations made and directions given in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case, at paragraph 3 are comprehensive to deal with the issue of large-scale destruction of private and public properties which unwinds during violent protests and demonstrations. The Committee‘s recommendations noted in the said judgment traverse the length and breadth of the issue at hand and, if implemented in their entirety, would go a long way in removing the bane of violence caused against persons and property. As far as implementation of the said recommendations, is concerned, and the Attorney General‘s submission is that the Union is mindful of the dictum in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case, and has advised the States to follow the same in its letter and spirit and also drafted a bill for initiating legislative changes in conformity with the recommendations of this Court, namely, The Prevention of Damage to Public Property (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which is currently being examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice. [Para 9] [724G-H; 725-A]
1.3 This Court is conscious of the fact that the crimes committed by groups of self-appointed keepers of public morality may be on account of different reasons or causes, but the underlying purpose of such group of persons is to exercise unlawful power of authority and that too, without sanction of State and create fear in the minds of the public or, in a given situation, section of the community. The dispensation for preventing occurrences of such crimes or remedial measures and punitive measures would vest in the same police in the State. Therefore, a comprehensive structure will have to be evolved in the respective States so that the issues of accountability and efficiency in curbing incidents of peaceful protests turning into mob violence, causing damage to property including investigation, remedial and punitive measures, are duly addressed. While doing so, the directions given by this Court in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties’s case, Shakti Vahini’s case and Tehseen S. Poonawalla’s case, must be borne in mind. [Paras 15] [742-A-C]
1.4 There are overlapping areas of directions which albeit apply to the situations referred to in the concerned decision. For the purpose of the instant writ petition, it is observed that the dispensation can be similar to the one decided recently in Tehseen Poonawalla case, for which reason the guidelines delineated in the said decision must apply proprio vigore in respect of peaceful protests turning into mob violence, causing damage to public and private properties. Ex abundanti cautela, it is clarified that similar interim measures would operate in respect of any peaceful protest turning into mob violence, causing loss of life or damage to public and private properties, including violence designed to instill fear in the minds and terrorise the common man, in the absence of any law to that effect. [Para 16] [742-D-F]
1.5 The recommendations/directions elucidated hereunder are not exhaustive but only to set out broad contour of the measures required to be taken and are in addition to the recommendations/directions given in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case.
A. Structural and preventive measures
a) In addition to the responsibilities ascribed to the Nodal Officer(s) as set out in Tehseen Poonawalla case, the said Nodal Officer(s) would also be responsible for creating and maintaining a list containing the various cultural establishments, including theatres, cinema halls, music venues, performance halls and centres and art galleries within the district, and pin point vulnerable cultural establishments and property which have been attacked/damaged by mob violence over the past 5 (five) years. This list would be updated on a regular basis to account for any new openings/closings of establishments. b) In addition to the prohibition against weaponry laid down in paragraph 12 (II) of In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case, any person found to be carrying prohibited weaponry, licensed or otherwise, during protests/demonstrations would prima facie be presumed to have an intention to commit violence and be proceeded in that regard as per law.
c) The State governments should set up Rapid Response Teams preferably district-wise which are specially trained to deal with and can be quickly mobilized to respond to acts of mob violence. These teams can also be stationed around vulnerable cultural establishments. d) The State governments should set up special helplines to deal with instances of mob violence.
e) The State police shall create and maintain a cyberinformation portal on its website and on its internet-based application(s) for reporting instances of mob violence and destruction of public and private properties. [Para 16] [742-F-H; 743-A-D]
B. Remedies to minimize, if not extirpate, the impending mob violence
a) The Nodal Officer(s) will coordinate with local emergency services, including police stations, fire brigades, hospital and medical services and disaster management authorities during incidents of mob violence in order to have a comprehensive and consolidated response to the situation.
b) The authorities must consider the use of non-lethal crowd-control devices, like water cannons and tear gas, which cause minimum injury to people but at the same time, act as an effective deterrent against mob force. c) The authorities must ensure that arrests of miscreants found on the spot are done in the right earnest. d) The Nodal Officer(s), may consider taking appropriate steps as per law including to impose reasonable restrictions on the social media and internet-based communication services or mobile applications, by invoking enabling provisions of law during the relevant period of mob violence, if the situation so warrants. e) The Nodal Officer(s) must take coordinated efforts and issue messages across various audio-visual mediums to restore peace and to stop/control rumours. This can extend to issuing communications on local TV channels, radio stations, social media like Twitter etc. [Para 16] [743E-H; 744-A-B]
C. Liability of person causing violence
a) If a call to violence results in damage to property, either directly or indirectly, and has been made through a spokesperson or through social media accounts of any group/organization(s) or by any individual, appropriate action should be taken against such person(s) including under Sections 153A, 295A read with 298 and 425 of the Penal Code, 1860.
b) In instances where a group/organisation has staged a protest or demonstration resulting in violence and damage to property, the leaders and office bearers of such group/organisation should physically present themselves for questioning, on their own, within 24 (twenty four) hours, in the police station within whose jurisdiction the violence and damage occurred. Any such person(s) failing to present himself/herself in such manner without any sufficient reason should be proceeded against as a suspect and legal process must be initiated forthwith against him/her including for being declared an absconder in accordance with law.
c) A person arrested for either committing or initiating, promoting, instigating or in any way causing to occur any act of violence which results in loss of life or damage to property may be granted conditional bail upon depositing the quantified loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for such quantified loss. In case of more than one person involved in such act of violence, each one of them shall be jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the quantified loss. If the loss is yet to be quantified by the appropriate authority, the judge hearing the bail application may quantify the amount of tentative damages (which shall be subject to final determination thereof by the appropriate authority) on the principle stated in paragraph 15 of the decision in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case, after hearing the submissions of the State/agency prosecuting the matter in that regard. [Para 16] [744-C-H]
D. Responsibility of police officials
a) When any act of violence results in damage to property, concerned police officials should file FIRs and complete investigation as far as possible within the statutory period and submit a report in that regard. Any failure to file FIRs and conduct investigations within the statutory period without sufficient cause should be considered as dereliction of duty on behalf of the concerned officer and can be proceeded against by way of departmental action in right earnest.
b) Since the Nodal Officer(s) holds the overall responsibility in each district to prevent mob violence against cultural establishments and against property, any unexplained and/or unsubstantiated delay in filing FIRs and/or conducting investigations in that regard should also be deemed to be inaction on the part of the said Nodal Officer(s).
(c) With reference to the videography mentioned in paragraphs 5(iv), 10 and 12 of In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties case, the officer-in-charge should first call upon from the panel of local video operators maintained by the concerned police station to video-record the events. If the said video operators are unable to record the events for whatever reason or if the officer-in-charge is of the opinion that supplementary information is required, then he/she can also call upon private video operators to record the events and request the media for information on the incident in question, if need be. Status reports of the investigation(s)/trial(s) concerning such offences, including the results of such trial(s), shall be uploaded on the official website of the concerned State police on a regular basis. In the event of acquittal of any person(s) accused of committing such offences, the Nodal Officer(s) must coordinate with the Public Prosecutor for filing appeal against such acquittal, in the right earnest. [Para 16] [745-A-B]
E. Compensation
a) The person/persons who has/have initiated, promoted, instigated or any way caused to occur any act of violence against cultural programmes or which results in loss of life or damage to public or private property either directly or indirectly, shall be made liable to compensate the victims of such violence.
b) Claims arising out of such acts of violence should be dealt with in the manner prescribed in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties’s case.
c) This compensation should be with regard to the loss of life or damage done to any public or private properties, both movable and immovable. [Para 16] [745-G-H; 746A-B]
1.4 The recommendations have to be implemented by the Central and State governments as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the stipulated period. [Para 18] [746-B-C] In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 212 : [2009] 6 SCR 439; Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2018 SC 3354; Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and Ors.(2018) 7 SCC 192 – relied on. Koshy Jacob Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2018) 11 SCC 756 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.