Back
2009(3) Supreme 557
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta and P. Sathasivam, JJ.
In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties — Petitioners
versus
State of A.P. and Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 77 of 2007
(With W.P. (Crl.) No.73 of 2007)
Decided on : 16-04-2009
(2002) 5 SCC 294; (1984) 2 SCC 244; (1997) 6 SCC 24; (1998) 1 SCC 226; (1985) 1 SCC 317; (1991) 3 SCC 655; (1991) 4 SCC 584; (1991) 4 SCC 406; (1996) 4 SCC 622; (1997) 4 SCC 306; AIR 1996 SC 929; (1993) 4 SCC 441 – Relied upon.
(b) Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ of Mandamus – Positive directions can be issued where there is a power coupled with a duty – The situations under which this can happen are numerous. (Para 11)
(1998) 1 SCC 226; AIR 1952 SC 16; (1880) 5 A.C. 214; AIR 1987 SC 537; (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Relied upon.
(c) Judicial Review – Guidelines may also become necessary in the absence of a statutory framework. (Para 14)
(1997) 6 SCC 241; (1998) 1 SCC 226 – Relied upon.
(d) Judicial Review – Guidelines are necessary (i) to the police to enforce statutory duties (ii) to create a special purpose vehicle in respect of damages for riot cases – These guidelines shall cease to be operative as and when appropriate legislation consistent with the guidelines indicated above are put in place and/or any fast track mechanism is created by Statute(s). (Paras 17 and 19)
(e) Judicial Review – Media should regulate itself by devising norms for its role in reporting riots etc, following the Trusteeship Principle, Self Regulation Principles, Content Regulations, Complaints Principle and Balance Principle. (Para 20)
Facts of the case :
1. Taking a serious note of various instances where there was large scale destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Supreme Court on 5.6.2007.
2. After perusing various reports filed, two Committees were appointed; one headed by Justice K.T. Thomas ad the by Mr. F.S. Nariman, a Senior Member of the Legal Profession.
3. Two reports have been submitted by the Committees. The matter was heard at length. The recommendations of the Committees headed by Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. F.S. Nariman have been considered.
Finding of the Court:
Guidelines are necessary (i) to the police to enforce statutory duties (ii) to create a special purpose vehicle in respect of damages for riot cases.
Result : Applications disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The Supreme Court has emphasized the necessity of establishing guidelines to assist law enforcement agencies in executing their statutory duties effectively and to create a specialized mechanism for addressing damages resulting from riots and civil disturbances (!) (!) .
The Court has approved the recommendations from two committees, which include measures such as amending existing laws to incorporate rebuttable presumptions of guilt for offenses related to destruction of public property, and making organizational leaders liable for inciting or abetting such acts (!) (!) (!) (!) .
There is a focus on utilizing technological evidence, such as videography, to document acts of violence and damage, with provisions for authenticating such evidence in court proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court advocates for stricter bail restrictions for offenders involved in damaging public property, including the possibility of imposing fines equivalent to the market value of damaged property and enhanced penalties to deter future offenses (!) (!) .
Guidelines for preventive actions include organizing demonstrations with police oversight, route revision, prohibition of weapons, videography of protests, and immediate reporting of any violence or damage to authorities and the courts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes the importance of media self-regulation based on principles of trusteeship, impartiality, responsible reporting, and balanced presentation, with a preference for self-regulation over external control (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It underscores the need for effective supervision of the media, including amendments to existing laws to support responsible journalism, and the establishment of independent mechanisms within media organizations (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in police actions, especially in cases of arrests and detention, advocating for proper documentation and oversight to prevent abuse of power (!) (!) (!) .
The Court stresses that while the state has the authority to take preventive detention and interrogation measures for national security, such actions must be conducted within constitutional and legal bounds, avoiding torture or illegal methods (!) (!) .
The Court advocates for a balanced approach to law enforcement, ensuring effective crime control while protecting individual rights, and emphasizes the need for continuous development of guidelines to address emerging challenges related to riots, protests, and public disorder (!) (!) .
Overall, the Court’s directives aim to strengthen legal frameworks, improve enforcement mechanisms, promote responsible media behavior, and uphold constitutional rights, with a focus on procedural fairness, transparency, and deterrence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on these points.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
1. Taking a serious note of various instances where there was large scale destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs, hartals and the like, suo motu proceedings were initiated by a Bench of this Court on 5.6.2007. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Senior counsel of this Court agreed to act as Amicus Curiae. After perusing various reports filed, two Committees were appointed; one headed by a retired Judge of this Court Justice K.T. Thomas. The other members of this Committee were Mr. K. Parasaran, Senior Member of the legal profession, Dr. R.K. Raghvan, Ex-Director of CBI, and Mr. G.E. Vahanavati, the Solicitor General of India and an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs and the Secretary of Department of Law and Justice, Government of India. The Other Committee was headed by Mr. F.S. Nariman, a Senior Member of the Legal Profession. The other members of the Committee were the Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express, the Times of India and Dainik Jagaran, Mr. Pranay Roy of NDTV and an officer not below the rank of Additional Secretary of Ministry of Home Affairs, Information and Broadcasting and Secretary, Department of Law and Justice, Government of India, Mr. G.E. Vahanavati, Solicitor General and learned Amicus Curiae.
2. Two reports have been submitted by the Committees. The matter was heard at length. The recommendations of the Committees headed by Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. F.S. Nariman have been considered.
3. Certain suggested guidelines have also been submitted by learned Amicus Curiae.
4. The report submitted by Justice K.T. Thomas Committee has made the following recommendations:
(i) The PDPP Act must be so amended as to incorporate a rebuttable presumption (after the prosecution established the two facets) that the accused is guilty of the offence.
(ii) The PDPP Act to contain provision to make the leaders of the organization, which calls the direct action, guilty of abetment of the offence.
(iii) The PDPP Act to contain a provision for rebuttable presumption.
(iv) Enable the police officers to arrange videography of the activities damaging public property.
5. The recommendations have been made on the basis of the following conclusions after taking into consideration the materials.
In respect of (i)
“According to this Committee the prosecution should be required to prove, first that public property has been damaged in a direct action called by an organization 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. Hence we are of the view that in situations where prosecution succeeds in proving that public property has been damaged in direct actions in which accused also participated, the court should be given the power to draw a presumption that the accused is guilty of destroying public property and that it is open to the accused to rebut such presumption. The PDPP Act may be amended to contain provisions to that effect.
In respect of (ii)
Next we considered how far the leaders of the organizations can also be caught and brought to trial, when public property is damaged in the direct actions called at the behest of such organizations. Destruction of public property has become so rampant during such direct actions called by organizations. In almost all such cases the top leaders of such organisations who really instigate such direct actions will keep themselves in the background and only the ordinary or common members or grass root level followers of the organisation would directly participate in such direct actions and they alone would be vulnerable to prosecution proceedings. In many such cases, the leaders would really be the main offenders being the abettors of the crime. If they are not caught in the dragnet and allowed to be immune from prosecution proceedings, such direct actions would continue unabated, if not further escalated,
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
