Proposed Prevention of Damage of Public Property Amendment Bill

India is a democratic country and therefore her Constitution gives rights to its citizen to protest but these rights are not absolute and are subjected to some reasonable restrictions such that these protests should be peaceful. Since independence there have been numerous protests in the country which were not peaceful and included a large scale destruction of public property as well. Therefore, in the year 1984, the legislators passed an act to provide for prevention of damage to public property and for matters connected therewith named as ‘Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.

What is a Public Property?

Public properties are what people of a country own and use it jointly. For example, we walk on road, use electricity, public parks and grounds, hospital, libraries, government offices, etc. These are all built with public money that is from the taxes we pay and the government is responsible for maintaining this property.

Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984: Is there a need for a change?

Damage to Public Property during violent protests is common place across the country. Taking note of such destruction of the public property which has become so rampant in the name of bandhs and hartals, a bench of the SupremeCourt in the year 2007 initiated suo motu proceedings. A need was felt by the court to amend the existing law on this matter i.e. PDPP Act, 1984 and hence, the court appointed two committees headed by two of the legal luminaries of the country, Justice KT Thomas and Fali S Nariman. The Union Home Ministry has accepted the recommendations of the committees and has proposed amendments to the PDPP act, 1984 to deter prospective violators from vandalizing and destroying public/private property during agitations and other forms of protests. The proposed amendments also seek to deter the office bearers of the organizations who call for this protests/agitation.

Analysis of the proposed amendments of the PDPP Act, 1984

• The PDPP Act is to be amended as to incorporate a new section 4A which provides for a presumption that the accused is guilty of the offence after the prosecution proves that public property has been damaged in a direct action called by any organization.
• 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 then it is open to the accused to rebut such presumption.
• The amended PDPP Act is to contain provision to make the leaders of the organization, which calls the direct action, guilty of abetment of the offence which is to be incorporated under section 4B and 4C of the Act.
• This addition is based on the conclusion that in almost all such cases of bandh , hartals etc. the top leaders of such organizations who really instigate such direct actions keep themselves in the background and only the ordinary or common members or followers of the organization directly participate in such actions and therefore are vulnerable to the prosecution proceedings.Therefore, the committee has tried to fix this flaw by making an additional provision in Act to the effect that specified categories of leaders of the organization which make the call for direct actions resulting in damage to public property, shall be deemed to be guilty of abetment of the offence.
• Enable the police officers to arrange videography of the activities damaging public property with incorporation of new section 4D.
• With the amendments brought in the Evidence Act, through Act 21 of 2000 permitting evidence collected through electronic devices as admissible in evidence, the alteration of this Act will give authority to the in-charge of the police station within the limits of which demonstrations are being held, may arrange for videography if he/she apprehends any damage to the public property.
• The amendment also will specify the amount to be paid as damage to the public property equivalent to the market value of that property unlike previous version which provided punishment with a jail term and an undefined fine.
• The amendment is also eyeing more stringent bail norms such that bail is to be granted only when there are reasonable groundsthat the accused is not guilty of the offence.

Critiques of the amendment

The concerns regarding the amendments sought are:-

• The proposed amendment of the Act has aroused fear of misuse against political opponents or activists raising voice against unjust actions of the government since it will enable criminal prosecution of leaders on presumptions rather than on proof or evidence of their role in destruction of property.
• Though the intention may be laudable, the amendment proposing that fine “shall” be equal to the market value of the property damaged might be impractical and unworkable. A better option would be to provide for fine which could extend up to the value of the property damaged.
• The amendment rightly proposes to make the provision for bail more stringent. But such provisions can be justified only if there is positive evidence and not when there is a presumption of guilt.

Conclusion

Although the amendment of the act will lead to stricter laws and would make it easier to fix criminal liability on leaders organizing protests which turn violent, the manner in which the government seeks to deal with issue might jeopardize the right to protest. The government may have a tough job at hand, but it should take up the challenge to deter unruly protesters without affecting the right to protest which is essential for a vibrant, healthy, responsive democracy.