2009 (4) TMI 1065 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Destruction of public and private properties during agitations.
2. Amendments to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act.
3. Liability of leaders of organizations calling for direct actions.
4. Use of videography for evidence collection.
5. Guidelines for police and state government during demonstrations.
6. Connection between tort and crime in the context of protests.
7. Media's role and self-regulation principles.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Destruction of Public and Private Properties During Agitations:

The Supreme Court initiated suo motu proceedings due to widespread destruction of properties during agitations, bandhs, and hartals. Two committees were formed to address this issue, headed by Justice K.T. Thomas and Mr. F.S. Nariman, respectively. The Court took a serious note of the situation, emphasizing the need for stricter legal frameworks to prevent such incidents.

2. Amendments to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act:

The Justice K.T. Thomas Committee recommended amendments to the PDPP Act to include a rebuttable presumption of guilt for the accused once the prosecution establishes that public property was damaged during a direct action. The committee suggested that the burden of proof should shift to the accused to prove their innocence. This recommendation aims to strengthen the legal provisions to hold individuals accountable for property destruction.

3. Liability of Leaders of Organizations Calling for Direct Actions:

The Committee proposed that leaders of organizations calling for direct actions should be deemed guilty of abetment if public property is damaged. It was noted that top leaders often instigate such actions while remaining in the background. The recommendation includes provisions to protect innocent leaders while holding culpable leaders accountable, thus preventing the escalation of such incidents.

4. Use of Videography for Evidence Collection:

The Committee recommended enabling police officers to arrange videography of activities damaging public property. This includes maintaining a panel of local video operators for quick deployment. The recorded evidence should be authenticated and preserved for trial purposes. This measure aims to provide concrete evidence in trials under the PDPP Act, reducing unmerited acquittals.

5. Guidelines for Police and State Government During Demonstrations:

The Court laid down guidelines for preventive action during demonstrations. Organizers must coordinate with police to ensure peaceful protests, prohibiting weapons and providing undertakings for peaceful conduct. The police are tasked with videographing protests and reporting incidents to the state government, which should file petitions in higher courts for suo motu action if necessary. These guidelines aim to maintain public order and accountability during protests.

6. Connection Between Tort and Crime in the Context of Protests:

The Nariman Committee highlighted the overlap between tort and criminal law, emphasizing the deterrent function shared by both. The Committee suggested that individuals causing damage during protests should be strictly liable for damages, echoing principles from landmark cases like M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. The Court was urged to evolve new principles of liability to address vandalism and rioting effectively.

7. Media's Role and Self-Regulation Principles:

The Nariman Committee proposed self-regulation principles for the media, emphasizing impartiality, objectivity, and responsible reporting, especially during protests. The Committee discouraged content regulation beyond existing statutes and encouraged the media to adopt self-regulatory codes. The Court acknowledged the importance of media responsibility and suggested that these principles be explored further, without imposing statutory regulations.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court accepted the recommendations from both committees, emphasizing the need for legislative amendments and guidelines to prevent property destruction during protests. The Court recognized the role of media and the importance of self-regulation. The judgment reflects a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges posed by agitations, balancing legal accountability, media freedom, and public order.