The right to peaceful protest and the expression of dissent constitutes the foundational bedrock of any functional democratic republic. Like the rhythmic beating of a heart, the voices of the citizenry keep the democratic body politic alive, vibrant and accountable to the governed.
Historically, organised and non-violent civil disobedience was central to the Indian independence movement, establishing a deep rooted socio-political tradition of expressing grievances through direct action. The framers of the Constitution of India implicitly guaranteed these sacred rights under Article 19, recognising that freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully are indispensable for the empowerment of marginalised communities.
True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity, ensuring that the change desired by the people is brought about peacefully.
However, this sacred constitutional right is not absolute. Over the past several decades, a deeply disturbing paradigm shift has emerged in the dynamics of public demonstrations. Protests, whether rooted in agrarian grievances, social justice claims or political dissent, have frequently metamorphosed into violent mobs. This tragic transformation results in the rampant destruction of public and private infrastructure, the disruption of essential services and the paralysis of economic activity. When a public bus is torched, a railway station is vandalised or a private commercial establishment is looted, it is not merely a piece of metal or concrete that turns to ashes. It is the hard earned taxpayer money, the logistical lifeline of the common citizen and the lifetime savings of innocent individuals that are irreparably destroyed.
The empirical data underscores the immense severity of this crisis. According to the Crime in India 2023 report released by the National Crime Records Bureau, the nation witnessed over sixty lakh cognizable crimes, with offences against property seeing a continuous upward trajectory. The sheer volume of these incidents strains the criminal justice system and inflicts a heavy toll on the national economy. The resources required for repairing vandalised infrastructure could otherwise be allocated to developmental projects, healthcare and education. Furthermore, the persistent damage to public and private property deters foreign investment and hampers the socioeconomic advancement of the entire country.
The primary legislative instrument intended to curb infrastructural vandalism is the The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984. Enacted to deter acts of vandalism resulting from riots and public commotion, this central statute provides graded punishments for committing mischief. Yet, four decades after its enactment, this legislation stands exposed as woefully inadequate. The law has largely failed as an effective deterrent because it focuses solely on the penal incarceration of the foot soldiers of a mob, while lacking specific provisions to establish the vicarious liability of the organisational leaders who instigate the violence. Furthermore, evidentiary hurdles make it extraordinarily difficult to secure convictions.
Recognising this profound legislative vacuum, the Supreme Court of India stepped into the breach with formidable judicial activism. In the landmark 2009 judgment concerning the destruction of public and private properties, the apex court took suo-moto cognizance of the issue and formulated stringent, binding guidelines. The Supreme Court imported doctrines from environmental tort law into the realm of public protests, declaring that organisers of demonstrations that devolve into violence must be held strictly and absolutely liable for the resulting damage. The court authorised the appointment of Claims Commissioners to assess damages and sanctioned the awarding of exemplary damages up to twice the amount of the actual loss incurred.
This judicial evolution reached another critical milestone with the Kodungallur Film Society vs Union Of India, which was brought before the court in the backdrop of mob violence and demonstrations erupting across the nation against cultural establishments. The Supreme Court unequivocally directed that a person arrested for committing, promoting or instigating violence that results in property damage may be granted conditional bail only upon depositing the quantified loss caused by such violence. This paradigm shifting directive converted the bail process itself into an instrument of profound economic deterrence, ensuring that financial restitution is inextricably intertwined with the restoration of personal liberty.
Despite these powerful judicial pronouncements, a glaring inequity persists in the statutory landscape regarding the protection of private property. The central Act of 1984 exclusively covers public property, leaving private citizens whose shops are burned, whose homes are vandalised or whose vehicles are destroyed during a political agitation without a dedicated statutory avenue for rapid relief. These innocent victims are often forced to navigate the notoriously sluggish corridors of ordinary civil courts to seek compensation, a process that can take decades. While some regional governments, such as the State of Kerala, with its 2019 legislation and the State of Uttar Pradesh, with its 2020 ordinance, have enacted specific laws to facilitate the civil recovery of damages for private properties, the absence of a uniform parliamentary statute remains a monumental failure.
To rectify this fragmented approach and permanently resolve the deterrence failures plaguing the prosecution of property crimes, the Twenty Second Law Commission submitted its 284th report titled Revisiting the Law on Prevention of Damage to Public Property to the government in early 2024. The Commission meticulously evaluated the systemic inadequacies of the existing laws and proposed sweeping, transformative amendments. Crucially, the Commission recommended redefining the concept of a fine to be completely equivalent to the market value of the damaged property, ensuring that the penal consequence directly mirrors the financial loss suffered. Furthermore, the recommendations boldly suggest creating a rebuttable presumption of guilt against accused participants and holding the office bearers of organising entities explicitly guilty of abetment. The Commission also advised codifying the judicial mandate that an accused shall only be released on bail on the strict condition that they deposit an amount equal to the estimated market value of the destroyed property.
It is a matter of urgent national importance that Parliament takes these expert recommendations into serious consideration and passes a unified, comprehensive law governing damages to both public and private properties. A modern democratic state cannot afford to maintain an artificial distinction between the assets owned by the government and the assets owned by its citizens. A new parliamentary statute must encompass all forms of property, establishing specialised recovery mechanism, with the authority to attach the assets of the perpetrators and disburse immediate financial compensation to the victims.
Enacting such a restorative and victim centric statute aligns perfectly with the evolving jurisprudential philosophy of the Indian state. With the recent implementation of the New Criminal Laws, the government has heralded a historic paradigm shift in the criminal justice system, anchoring it firmly on the foundational principles of Citizen First-Justice First-Dignity First. For decades, the colonial era penal codes prioritised the authority of the state and the punishment of the offender, often relegating the victim to the margins of the judicial process. The new legislative vision rightfully places the dignity and the rehabilitation of the victim at the very center of the legal universe.
When an innocent citizen loses their livelihood, their commercial establishment or their shelter to the mindless fury of a riotous mob, they are stripped of their fundamental human dignity. Expecting them to rebuild their lives from the ashes without swift, statutory financial support is a profound betrayal of the social contract. By passing a comprehensive property damage recovery law that guarantees immediate relief to these victims, Parliament would be institutionalising the Dignity First approach in its purest form. Restitution is not merely a mechanism for economic recovery, but it is a powerful reaffirmation of the citizen’s worth and their right to a secure, peaceful existence within the republic.
Moreover, shifting the financial burden of protests directly onto the organisers and the perpetrators serves as the ultimate democratic corrective. It forces political parties, social movements and fringe groups to internalise the economic risks of their direct actions. When leadership understands that inciting a mob will lead to the immediate attachment of their personal bank accounts and organisational assets, they will inevitably exercise greater diligence in maintaining the peaceful character of their assemblies. This economic deterrence protects the right to dissent by isolating and neutralising the rogue elements that seek to weaponise public gatherings for violence.
The architecture of accountability in India requires a robust, uncompromising foundation. The right to protest must be fiercely guarded as the lifeblood of our democratic discourse, but the right to destroy can never be tolerated as a collateral consequence of that freedom. The recommendations of the Law Commission offer a meticulously crafted blueprint to achieve this delicate balance. By transforming these recommendations into binding parliamentary law, the state can bridge the vast gap between democratic dissent and restorative justice. We must build a legal reality where the voices of the aggrieved can echo through the streets without the accompanying shatter of glass and the smoke of burning livelihoods. A nation that respects the dignity of its citizens must unconditionally protect the fruits of their labour, ensuring that the pursuit of justice never paves the way for the architecture of ruin.
The author Ajmal Shah is an advocate practicing before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Srinagar.
