SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 880

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.
DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC & PRIVATE PROPERTIES, IN RE
Suo motu matter
Decided on June 5, 2007

The right to protest does not justify destruction of properties, and police action is necessary to address such offenses.

Headnote:

Destruction of Properties - Preventive Action - Summary

Fact of the Case:

The court noted largescale destruction of public and private properties with no preventive action taken against the offenders. The court also highlighted the offenders' perceived heroism as portrayed in the media.

Finding of the Court:

The court requested a Senior Advocate to assist as an amicus curiae and directed the police authorities to obtain footage of the telecasts for appropriate action. It emphasized that the right to protest does not justify property destruction or vandalism.

Issues: Largescale destruction of properties, lack of preventive action, offenders' perceived heroism, and the right to protest versus property protection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for police action against offenders responsible for property destruction and highlighted the distinction between the right to protest and unlawful acts of vandalism.

Final Decision: The Director Generals of Police and the Commissioner of Police were directed to file affidavits within 10 days, and the matter was scheduled for further listing.

ORDER

1. It has come to our notice that in the last one week there has been largescale destruction of public and private properties and no preventive action appears to have been taken and unfortunately it does not prima facie appear that any action has been taken against the offenders who were responsible for destruction of such properties. As the electronic media shows, the offenders feel that they have done some very heroic or laudable thing because they show their beaming faces when the TV camera is focused on them.

2. At our request, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate, present in Court, has agreed to assist this Court as an amicus curiae. Dr. Dhavan may ask the TV channels concerned to provide the footage of the telecasts to the police authorities as also to him so that appropriate orders can be passed in the matter. Dr. Dhavan submitted that even if there may be a right to protest in some cases, that does not give licence to anybody to destroy properties and/or indulge in acts of vandalism.

3. We direct the Director Generals of Police of the States of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to file affidavits in this Court as to what actions have been taken and/or are proposed to be taken against the offenders. The affidavits shall also indicate if no action has been taken as yet, and the cause therefor. The affidavits shall be filed within 10 days from today.

4. The matter shall be listed on 18 - 6 - 2007.

Court Masters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top