Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984

24 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

KOSHY JACOBversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2017 INSC 115328 November 2017Disposed off

Koshy Jacob, an advocate, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a direction to the Union of India to implement the Supreme Court's guidelines issued in the 2009 Destruction of Public and Private Properties case. He alleged that frequent strikes and agitations were causing widespread destruction of public prope

THE STATE OF KERALAversusK. AJITH & ORS.

2021 INSC 36628 July 2021Dismissed

During the 2015 Kerala budget presentation, several opposition MLAs climbed onto the Speaker's dais and damaged furniture, leading to a criminal case under IPC sections 427, 447, 34 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. The public prosecutor sought to withdraw the prosecution under Section 321 of t

ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION,, BANGALOREversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

2013 INSC 56927 August 2013Appeal(s) allowed

On 2 March 2012 a former Karnataka minister was to be produced before the City Civil Court Complex, Bangalore, triggering a large crowd, a scuffle between advocates, police and media persons, and subsequent violence that injured many and led to over 191 FIRs. The Advocates Association filed writ petitions seeking a CBI

BABUBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ETC.

2010 INSC 54126 August 2010Disposed off

Two FIRs (CR No.1‑154/2008 and CR No.1‑155/2008) were lodged for communal clashes in Dhedhal village. The High Court quashed the second FIR, merged the investigations, and transferred the case to the State CID, also directing that the charge‑sheet of the quashed FIR be read into the surviving case. The Supreme Court he

MANOJ PRATAP SINGHversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2022 INSC 65224 June 2022Dismissed

Manoj Pratap Singh was convicted of kidnapping, raping and murdering a seven-and-a-half-year-old mentally and physically disabled girl. The prosecution proved its case through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including DNA matches, blood‑stained clothing, the victim’s body recovered at the appellant’s direc

IBRAHIM MUSA CHAUHAN @ BABA CHAUHANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 18021 March 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court reviewed a series of criminal appeals arising from the 1993 Bombay serial blasts, all tried under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appeals concerned convictions for offences such as unauthorised possession of arms and explosives (s.3(3), s.5, s.6 TADA), conspi

YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMONversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY

2013 INSC 17921 March 2013Disposed off

On March 12, 1993, a series of 12 bomb explosions occurred in Bombay, killing 257 people and injuring 713, with property damage worth Rs. 27 crores. The conspiracy was hatched by Tiger Memon and Dawood Ibrahim, with Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1) playing a key role. The Designated Court convicted 100 accused, sentencing

AHMED SHAH KHAN DURRANI @ A.S. MUBARAKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2013 INSC 17821 March 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court of India delivered a consolidated judgment on multiple appeals arising from the 1993 Bombay serial blasts case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The appeals challenged convictions and acquittals of various accused persons involved in the conspiracy, landing,

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusFAZAL REHMAN ABDUL

2013 INSC 18121 March 2013Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined 19 appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra against acquittals in the 1993 Bombay serial bomb blast case, focusing on conspiracy charges under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Indian Penal Code. It reiterated the limited circumstances in which an appell

SANJAY DUTT (A-117)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH CBI (STF), BOMBAY

2013 INSC 18221 March 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals arising from the Designated Court's judgments in the 1993 Bombay bomb blast case under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA). The Court held that confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of TADA are substantive evidence admissible a

G H KANWAR PAL SINGHversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

2019 INSC 140618 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a director of a mining company, was granted a lease to excavate sand in specific plots in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, but was alleged to have mined sand outside the permitted area, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 379 IPC, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the

LAL MOHD. & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2025 INSC 81114 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, members of a political party, were arrested after a communal protest triggered by an incendiary social media post on 10 October 2022 and were later released on bail. Six months later, the police prepared a gang chart and lodged a fresh FIR on 30 April 2023 under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters & Anti-Social

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusKAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI & ORS.

2013 INSC 16214 March 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned two separate prosecutions arising from the July 2006 Mumbai suburban train bomb blasts. In Special Case No. 21 of 2006, the accused‑respondents sought to summon four Deputy Commissioners of Police (who had recorded confessional statements of three other accused in a later Special Case No. 4 of 2009)

MOHD. JALEES ANSARI AND OTHERSversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

2016 INSC 40211 May 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the appeal of sixteen accused convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for a series of bomb blasts on Indian trains in December 1993. The Court held that Section 20A(1) of TADA makes prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police an absolute pre

CHANDRA PRAKASHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN

2014 INSC 3859 May 2014Dismissed

On 26 January 1996 a bomb exploded at the SMS Stadium in Jaipur, leading to the arrest of six accused, including Chandra Prakash, Abdul Mateen and others. The prosecution relied on the testimony of an approver (PW‑1) who implicated the accused, on material recovered from the accused’s premises (ammonium nitrate, dynami

DINGANGLUNG GANGMEIversusMUTUM CHURAMANI MEETEI & ORS

2023 INSC 6987 August 2023Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a Special Leave Petition arising from sectarian violence in Manipur that included widespread sexual violence against women, directed the State and Union governments to restore law and order and ensure justice for victims. It ordered the formation of a three‑member committee of former female j

ABU SALEM ABDUL QAYYUM ANSARIversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANR.

2013 INSC 5125 August 2013Disposed off

Abu Salem, an accused in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, was extradited from Portugal to India in 2005 on the assurance that he would not face the death penalty or imprisonment beyond 25 years. After his return, the Designated Court framed additional charges beyond those covered by the extradition, which Abu Salem argued

GULFISHA FATIMAversusSTATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

2026 INSC 25 January 2026Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined bail applications of several accused in the 2020 Delhi riots case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It balanced the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21 against the statutory bail restriction in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, considering the length of pre‑trial de

C.B.I.versusKARIMULLAH OSAN KHAN

2014 INSC 1654 March 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sought to add charges of murder and other offences against Karimullah Osan Khan, an accused in the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts, under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) rej

SUBHAS DATTAversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2015 INSC 863 February 2015Disposed off

The petitioner filed a public‑interest writ under Article 32 seeking directions for adequate security and investigation of thefts of historic artefacts from several Indian museums, including the Viswabharati University museum, Asiatic Society, Nandan Art Gallery and Victoria Memorial. The Union of India and various mus

HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ANR.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2018 INSC 10392 November 2018Disposed off

The Himachal Pradesh Cricket Association (HPCA) was granted lease of government land to build a world‑class cricket stadium, later receiving additional land for a club house and a hotel at commercial rates. Two FIRs were filed alleging illegal lease grants, cheating, criminal breach of trust and violations of the Preve

KODUNGALLUR FILM SOCIETY & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 9171 October 2018Disposed off

The Kodungallur Film Society filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking directions to prevent mob violence against cultural establishments, especially following protests over films like Padmaavat. The Court examined whether the State must implement the guidelines from In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Proper

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search