KOSHY JACOBversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                       [2017] 11 S.C.R. 235



                         KOSHY JACOB                                   A
                                 v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 55 of2013)
                      NOVEMBER 28, 2017                               B

[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.J
        Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Writ            •
petition seeking direction for implementation of guidelines issued
by this Court in *Destruction of Public and Private Properties case -
 Grievance of petitioner was that large number of strikes/agitations
                                                                        c
rern/t in destruction of puh/ic property and also violation of
jimdamenta/ right of the people for which suitable remedy is not
available to the aggrieved victims - Committee appointed by the
Supreme Court recommended statuto1:v amendments for making those
sponsoring such agitations accou/1/ab/e and punishable under the D
cri111inal lalv - Holvever, inspite of such recon1111e11clatio11s, no
legislation or speedy mechanism has been put in place so far - In
 reply affidavit by Union of India. ii was submilled that the process
 has been initiated for amendment of the Prevention of Damage to
 Public Property Act - In view of the stand taken by Union of India,
                                                                        E
 it is expected that the law proposed will be brought into force within
 reasonable time to address all concerned issues - Writ petition
 accordingly disposed of
      *Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re ~:
      State ofAndhra Pradesh and Others (2009) 5 SCC 212 :
                                                                       F
      (20091 6 SCR 439 - referred to.
                       Case l,a\V Reference
(2009] 6 SCR 439                referred to             Pnra 2
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
55 of20l3.                                                             G
      Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia.
      K.K. Venugopal,AG, Shiv Mangal Sharma, D. K. Thakur,AAGs,
Wi\ls Mathew, Adolf Mathew, Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Biju P. Raman,
Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Madhvi Diwan, Rohit Bhatt, B. V. Balramdas,
                                                                       H
                            235
236            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] II S.C.R.



A     B. Krishna Prasad, Ms. Nandini Sen, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Mishra
      Saurabh, Ankit Kr. Lal, Shibashish Misra, Ms. Sylona Mohapatra,
      M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi. Ms. Aruna Mathur, Avneesh
      Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet (For Mis. Arputham
      ArunaAnd Co.), Dr. Monika Gusain, Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Ms. Geeta
      Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjal Singh, G M. Kawoosa, M.
B
      Shoeb Alam, Nishe Raj en Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Reegan S. Bee,
      Ms. Rachana Srivastava. Prateek Dwivedi, Ms. Monika, Sukrit R.
      Kapoor, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Nilcsh Y. Ukcy, P. V. Yogcswaran,
      Vivek R. Mohanty, Mil ind Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi,
      Ms. Hcmantika Wahi, Ms. Jcsal Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Shodhika
c     Sharma, Ms. $eema Sharma, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms. K. Enatoli
      Serna, Edward Behlo, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Z. H.
      Isaac Haiding, Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, Ms. Dccpa M. Kulkarni, Ms.
      Abha R. Sharma, D.S. Pamar,Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Dcbojit Borkakati,
      Shuvodeep Roy, Gopal Singh, Rituraj Biswas, Abid Ali Beeran P, Ms.
      Pragati Ncekhra, Avijit Bhattacharjec, Ms. Asha Gopalan Na.ir, Balaji
D
      Srinivasan, Sunil Fernandes,Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The following Order of the Court was delivered:
                                     ORDER
             I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
 E
             2. This petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia,
      seeks direction for implementation of guidelines issued by this Court in
      Destruction of Public and Private Properties. In Re v. State of Andhra
      Pradesh and Others, (2009) 5 SCC 212.
             3. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is an
 F
      advocate. He was forced to spend more than 12 how-son road to reach
      his home after being discharged from hospital after surgery on 23n1 May,
      2012, on account of an on-going agitation. According to the petitioner,
      large number of strikes/agitations have taken place resulting in destruction
      of public property and also resulting in violation offundamental right of
 G    the people for which suitable remedy is not available to the aggrieved
      victims.
             4. Committees appointed by this Court in the above case
      recommended statutory amendments for making those sponsoring such
      agitations accountable and punishable under the criminal law and also
 H
          KOSHY JACOB v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                   237


requiring preventive and remedial actions such as videography of all the         A
activities and award for damages. In spite of such recommendations, no
legislation or speedy mechanism has been put in place so far which
appears to be the reason for this petition.
        5. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court in this matter,
affidavits have been filed by different States as well as by Union of B
India. In the affidavit filed by the Union of India, it is submitted that the
process has been initiated for amendment of the Prevention of Damage
to Public Property Act, 1984 in consultation with the Ministry of Law
and Justice. A draft has been prepared and published on the website
seeking comments of the public and other stake-holders. Union oflndia
has also sent a letter dated 6"' May, 2013 to all the States and Union c
Territories advising the action to be taken as soon as there is a
demonstration. The guidelines arc as follows:
      "(i) If the otftcer in charge of a police station or other law enforcing
      agency is of the opinion that any direct action, either declared or
      undeclared has the potential of causing destruction or damage to           D
      public property, he shall avail himself of the services of video
      operators. For this pw-pose each police station shall be empowered
      to maintain a panel oflocal video operators who could be made
      available at short notices.
      (ii) The police officer who have responsibility to act on the              E
      information that a direct action is immediate and if he has reason
      to apprehend that such direct action has the potential of causing
      destruction of public property, he shall immediately avail himself
      of the services of the video-grapher to accompany him or any
      other police officer deputed by him to the site or any other place         F
      whcrcfrom video shooting can conveniently be arranged
      concentrating on the person/persons indulging in any acts of
      violence or other acts causing destruction of damage to any
      property.
      (iii) No sooner than the direct action subsides, the police officer
                                                                                 G
      concerned shall authenticate the video by producing the
      videographer before the Sub divisional or Executive Magistrate
      to entrust such CD/material to the custody of the police officer or
      any other person to be produced in court at the appropriate stage
      or as and when called for.
                                                                                 H
238            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 11 S.C.R.


A           (iv) The organizer shall meet the police to review and revise the
            route to betaken and to lay down conditions for a peaceful march
            or protest.
            (v) All weapons. including knives, lathis and the like shall be
            prohibited.
B           (vi) An undertaking is to be provided by the organizers to ensure
            a peaceful march with marshals at each relevant junction.
            (vii) The police and State Government shall ensure videography
            of such,protests to the maximum extent possible.

c           {viii) The person in charge to supervise the demonstration shall be
            the SP (if the situation is confined to the district) and the highest
            police officer in the State, where the situation stretches beyond
            one district.
            (ix) In the event that demonstrations turn violent. the otliccr-in-
D           charge shall ensure that the events are videographed through
            private operators and also request such further information from
            the media and others on the incidents in question.
            (x) The Police shall immediately inform the State Government
            with reports on the events, including damage, if any caused.
E           (xi) The State Government shall prepare a report on the police
            reports, and other information that may be available to it and shall
            file a petition including its reports in the High Court or Supreme
            Court as the case may be for the Court in question to take suo
            motu action."

 f           6. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India. has
      submitted that in spite of the guidelines, situations have been created
      wherein peaceful agitation turns into violent, causing Joss of lives and
      destruction of public property. At times, central forces are deployed to
      aid the law and order machinery. He fairly states that there is undoubted
      need for preventive and remedial measures to be adopted to ckal with
G     such situations. A mechanism is necessary to fix accountability of any
      failure to take preventive steps as well as to provide for punishing the
      guilty and compensation to the victim.
             7. In Destruction of Public and Private Properties, In Re (Supra),
      this Court took suo motu proceedings to remedy the large scale destruction
H
           KOSHY JACOB v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                 239


of public and private property in agitations. bandhs, hartals and the           A
like. The reports of the committee appointed by this Court recommended
prosecution of those involved in damage to the public property, including
the leaders and ofiice-bearcrs of the organisations which call for such
action. Recommendation includes collection of evidence by using
electronic means such as videography and to compensate the victims.
                                                                                B
Taking into account the said reports. this Cou11, in absence of a legislation
on the subject, issued guidelines to the effect that this Court or the High
Court may take s110 moru action. set up a machinery to investigate and
to award compensation. An assessor could be appointed by the High
Court or by this Court, to assess the claim of the people. The guidelines,
inter alia. are as follows:                                                     c
       "6. The recommendations of the Justice Thomas Committee have
       been made on the basis of the following conclusions after taking
       into consideration the materials.
       In respect of (l)
                                                                                D
       7. "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 organisation 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     E
       that public property has been damaged in direct actions in which
       the 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                      F
       provisions to that effect."
       In respect of (ii)
       8. "Next we considered how far the leaders of the organisations
       can also be caught and brought to trial, when public property is
       damaged in the direct actions called at the behest of such               G
       organisations. Destruction of public property has become so
       rampant during such direct actions called by organisations. 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
                                                                                H
240            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          (2017] ll S.C.R.


A           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
 B
            unabated. if not further escalated, and will remain a constant or
            recurring affair.
                 Of course, it is normally difficult to prove abetment of the
            offence with the help of direct evidence. This !law can be remedied
            to a great extent by making an additional provision in PDPP Act
c           to the effect that specified categories ofleadcrs of the organisation
            which make the call for direct actions resulting in damage to public
            property, shall be deemed to be guilty ofabetment of the offence.
            At the same time.no innocent person, in spite of his bdng a leader
            of the organisation shall be made to suffer for the actions done by
D           others. This requires the inclusion of a safeguard to protect such
            innocent leaders."
            In respect of (iii)
            9. ·•After considering various aspects to this question we decided
            to recQmmend that prosecution should be required to prove (I)
            that those accused were the leaders or office-bearers of the
 E
            organisation which called out for the direct actions and (ii) that
            public property has been damaged in or during or in the aftermath
            of such direct actions. At that stage of trial it should be open to
            the court to draw a presumption against such persons who arc
            arraigned in the case that they have abetted the commission of
 F          offence. However, the accused in such case shall not be liable to
            conviction if he proves that (I) he was in no way connected with
            the action called by his political party or that (ii) he has taken all
            reasonable measures to prevent causing damage to public property
            in the direct action called by his organisation.''
 G           8. It was observed that this Court could not issue a direction to
      make law which matter had to be left to the concerned authorities and
      guidelines were to operate till relevant law was framed.
             9. Since no law has been framed even though 8 years have passed
      after the matter was dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
 H    the petitioner has approached this court, as noted earlier.
             KOSHY JACOB v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                                    241



         I 0. In view of the stand in the counter affidavit and the statement        A
  oflearned Attorney General. we do hope that the Jaw now proposed by
  the Union of India is brought into force within a reasonable time to address
· all concerned issues. Learned Attorney General has very fairly stated
  that the Jaw may provide for speedy mechanism for criminal liability,
  action for administrative failures as well as remedies to the victims. A
                                                                                     B
  suggestion has been made that one or more district/additional district
  Judges can be appointed by the State Government in consultation with
  the High Cow·t to deal with such issue either on whole-time basis or on
  part-time basis, as the situation may require. In such cases cadre strength
  of the judicial officers may require suitable temporary or permanent
  increase. This suggestion can be considered in the course of making the            c
  proposed Jaw.
        I I. As far as the individual claim of the petitioner is concerned,
 the organisers of the agitation are not before this Court. The petitioner is
 at liberty to take his remedy at appropriate forum in accordance with
 law.                                                                                D
        The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.


 Dcvika Gujral                                          Writ Petition disposed or.