The protests against the Agnipath scheme for the Armed Forces have turned violent with mobs going on a rampage in at least seven states. There’s a law against destruction of public property. But how effective is it?
Protests against Agnipath, the government’s new military recruitment policy for armed forces, have intensified over the past three days. Mobs set trains on fire in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The agitation has also spread to Madhya Pradesh and Haryana where violence and stone-pelting have been reported.
Protesters are outraged with changes ushered in by the Agnipath scheme for recruiting soldiers in the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force on a four-year short-term contractual basis. However, aspirants are angry about the length of service, the age restriction which has now been extended from 21 to 23 years, and no pension provision.
At the centre of the protest is Bihar, where trains were set on fire, window panes of buses smashed, and passersby hit with stones. The house of Bihar deputy chief minister Renu Devi was attacked in West Champaran district’s Bettiah.
In Uttar Pradesh, a mob barged into the Ballia railway station and burned a train coach and vandalised property. Men branding lathis attacked shops and benches at the railway station.
At least seven states have erupted in protests as mobs run riot burning trains and blocking roads. One person has died and 15 have been injured in Telangana’s Secunderabad.
Across states, public property is damaged, which is all too common when protests turn violent in the country. But what does the law say about violent demonstrations and who pays for the damages? We take a look.
Also read: The Agnipath-like schemes that other countries follow to recruit soldiers
The law
The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 came into force on 28 January 1984.
This Act defines public property as any property whether immovable or movable (including any machinery) which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of the Centre, any state government, any local authority, or any corporation established by, or under, a Central, Provincial or State Act. It also extends to any company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 or any government institution.
Under this Act, a public property includes “any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy; any oil installation; any sewage works; any mine or factory; any means of public transportation or telecommunications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith”.
The punishment
According to the Act, miscreants causing damage to public property shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years with a fine provided the court may award a sentence of imprisonment for a term fewer than six months.
Those causing damage to public property by fire or explosive substances shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for at least a year but it may extend to ten years.
The Act says that no person accused or convicted or accused of any punishable offence for damaging public property be released on bail or his own bond unless the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application of such a release.
The role of the Supreme Court
On several occasions, the top court has stepped in when it has found that the law was not adequate. In 2007, the Supreme Court took note of various instances where there was large-scale destruction of public and private properties because of agitations, bandhs and hartals and appointed two committees headed by former apex court judge Justice KT Thomas and senior advocate Fali Nariman to suggest changes to the law.
Police opened fire to disperse protestors during a demonstration against the Agnipath recruitment scheme in Secunderabad. AFP
What did the committees recommend?
In 2009, the Supreme Court issued guidelines based on the recommendations of the two committees.
The Thomas Committee suggested that the prosecution should be required to prove that public property had been damaged in direct action called by an organisation and that the accused also participated in such direct action.
The top court accepted the suggestion and added that the law must be amended to give the court the power to draw a presumption that the accused is guilty of destroying public property and it would then be open to the accused to rebut such presumption.
The law presumes that the accused is innocent until the prosecution proves its case.
The Nariman Committee recommendations were with regards to extracting damages for destruction. The court accepted them and ruled that the rioters should be made strictly liable and compensation must be collected for the damage done.
“Where persons, whether jointly or otherwise, are part of a protest which turns violent, results in damage to private or public property, the persons who have caused the damage, or were part of the protest or who have organized it will be deemed to be strictly liable for the damage so caused, which may be assessed by the ordinary courts or by any special procedure created to enforce the right,” the court said, according to a report in The Indian Express.
The SC also directed High Courts to set up a machinery to investigate the damage caused and award compensation wherever mass destruction to property takes place because of protests.
Have rioters been penalised?
Gujarat leader Hardik Patel was charged with sedition during the 2015 Patidar agitation for inciting violence that led to the loss of life and property. However, his lawyers argued in the Supreme Court that there was no evidence that he incited the violence and could not be held liable for loss of life or property, says the newspaper report.
The other instance of strong action for vandalising public property was against the religious cult Dera Sacha Sauda, whose followers went on a rampage and destroyed properties across Haryana and Punjab in 2017, following the arrest of its head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had ruled that all losses caused to properties be recovered from the Dera. However, until 2020 no recovery had been made, according to a report in The Hindustan Times.
In 2019, the Uttar Pradesh government issued notices to around 500 people asking them to pay up a total of Rs 14.86 lakh in damages for the destruction of government properties during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
The notices cited a 2010 Allahabad High Court decision in the Mohammad Shujauddin v State of UP case, which had directed the state to compensate for the loss to the public caused during an agitation. The order said that the government had failed to implement the provisions of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The losses incurred
States have been largely unsuccessful in recovering damages.
During the Jat agitation in Haryana in 2016, public and private property worth Rs 1,800 to Ra 2,000 crore was damaged, according to Assocham, a Delhi-based non-profit trade association and advocacy group.
During the anti-CAA protests, the Indian Railways estimated losses of property worth Rs 80 crore in West Bengal in four days alone.
Now as the agitation against Agnipath rages on, the losses will continue to mount. And in all probability, no one will pay for them.
With inputs from agencies
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,
India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.