1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.330 OF 2018

Kodungallur Film Society …Petitioners

& Anr.

:Versus:

Union of India & Ors. …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition on 25

th

January, 2018, in the backdrop of mob violence, protests and

demonstrations which erupted across the nation in the recent

past, especially against cultural programmes and

establishments and the ensuing damage to public and private

properties arising out of such violence. Petitioner No. 1 is a

registered film society and petitioner no. 2, is a member of the

2

petitioner no.1 film society. They have highlighted law and

order problems arising out of the release of several films,

especially the violence surrounding the release of the film

‗Padmaavat‘, and submit that fundamentalist outfits and

fringe groups have been issuing threats and engaging in acts

of violence against people and property to disrupt and prevent

public exhibitions of these films on the pretext that they offend

their cultural/religious sentiments. These groups engage in

violence against artistic expression, with utter impunity and

show complete disregard for the rule of law and constitutional

values. The films which are protested against are certified for

public exhibition in accordance with law under the

Cinematograph Act and by attempting to stop their exhibition,

these groups operate as ‗super censors‘, exercising unlawful

authority and power outside the control and without the

sanction of the State. These attacks on films are part of a

larger problem whereby private individuals and groups impose

unlawful restraints by threatening violence upon citizens‘

artistic freedoms and thereby impinge on the freedom of

speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the

3

Constitution of India. The petitioners contend that the

respondent state governments then themselves ban the

exhibition of such films, citing law and order problems,

without clamping down on the root cause of such problems

namely the individuals and groups who incite and commit

violence. It is also contended that many such groups have

tacit support from the political parties in power.

2. The petitioners have consequently prayed for the

following reliefs:

―a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other

appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents

to strictly follow and implement the guidelines formulated by

this Hon‘ble Court in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private

Properties v. Govt. of AP (2009) 5 SCC 212 with regard to

measures to be taken to prevent destruction of public and

private properties in mass protestes and demonstrations,

and also regarding the modalities of fixing liability and

recovering compensation for damages caused to public and

private properties during such demonstrations and protests,

particularly mentioned in Paragraph 12 and 15 of SCC

Report of the said judgment.

b) appoint Claims Commissioner in the manner stated in

paragraph 15 of the judgment in In Re: Destruction of Public

and Private Properties v. Govt. of AP (2009) 5 SCC 212 to

assess damages caused to public and private properties by

protestors and also to fix liability not only on the

perpetrators but also on the leaders of the

groups/outfits/organizations which instigated agitations

with their threats against film makers and exhibitors and

through their call for destroying multiplexes, malls, cinema-

halls, theaters etc. in order to prevent the exhibition of films;

c) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order directing

4

all the state governments to initiate forthwith action under

the Indian Penal Code 1860 and the Prevention of

Destruction to Public Property Act 1984 against persons who

commit, cause to commit and incite violence and acts of

destruction with the intention of preventing and disrupting

the screening of films which are certified for public exhibition

under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 as it is violative of

Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution of India, in the interest of

justice; and ;

d) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order directing

the respondents to recover the additional expenditure

involved in providing security to film exhibition centers from

those people who have raised threats against exhibiting

certified films, in the interest of justice; and

e) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order directing

the respondents to complete the investigation and trial in

such offences in a time bound manner, in th e interest of

justice; and

f) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order that the

bail applications, if any, moved by persons arrested for

committing, causing, abetting or inciting acts of violence and

destruction with the intention of preventing and disrupting

the screening of films certified for public exhibition under the

Cinematograph Act 1952 will be allowed only on condition

that they deposit the sum equivalent to the loss quantified to

have been caused by them, or furnish security for such

quantified loss and also, in the interest of justice; and

g) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of

Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order that the

assets and properties of such arrested persons and also the

leaders of protesting groups which incited or abetted violence

and destruction, will remain under attachment for the loss

quantified to have been caused until its realization, in the

interest of justice; and

h) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other

appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents

to file status reports regarding the implementation of actions

taken by them with respect to guidelines formulated by this

Hon‘ble Court in strictly follow and implement the guidelines

formulated by this Hon‘ble Court in In Re: Destruction of

Public and Private Properties v. Govt. of AP (2009) 5 SCC,

particularly mentioned in Paragraph 12 and 15 of SCC

Report of the said judgment.

5

i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other

appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents

to explore the options of invoking the provisions of Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 against the

outfits/groups/organizations which make brazen threats on

film makers and artists, and indulge in systematic and

organized acts of destruction and damage of property so as

to achieve their unlawful ends by striking terror in society;

j) Please to issue any other writ or direction(s) or

Order(s) as the Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in

view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the

interest of justice.‖

3. The principal relief is to issue directions to the

States/Union of India to strictly implement the decision

rendered by this Court in In Re: Destruction of Public and

Private Properties Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

1

concerning the large-scale destruction of properties in the

name of agitations, bandhs, hartals etc. The Court, after

taking note of certain suggestions given by the Committees

appointed by the Court inter alia recommended amendments

to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (for

short ‗the PDPP Act’), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and

other criminal law statutes; and also set out guidelines to

assess damages to property in the absence of a statutory

1

(2009) 5 SCC 212

6

framework. The relevant portion of the judgment is set out

hereunder:

―4. Two reports have been submitted by the Committees. The

matter was heard at length. The recommendations of the

Committees headed by Justice K.T. T homas and Mr. F.S.

Nariman have been considered. Certain suggested guidelines

have also been submitted by learned Amicus Curiae.

5. The report submitted by Justice K.T. Thomas

Committee has made the following recommendations:

(i) The PDPP Act must be so amended as to incorporate a

rebuttable presumption (after the prosecution established

the two facets) that the accused is guilty of the offence.

(ii) The PDPP Act to contain provision to make the leaders of

the organisation, which calls the direct action, guilty of

abetment of the offence.

(iii) The PDPP Act to contain a provision for rebuttable

presumption.

(iv) Enable the police officers to arrange videography of the

activities damaging public property.

6. The recommendatio ns of the Justice Thomas

Committee have been made on the basis of the following

conclusions after taking into consideration the materials.

In respect of (i)

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 organization 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 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 that it is open

to the accused to rebut such presumption. The PDPP Act

may be amended to contain provisions to that effect.‖

7

In respect of (ii)

8. ―Next we considered how far the leaders of the

organizations can also be caught and brought to trial, when

public property is damaged in the direct actions called at the

behest of such organizations. Destruction of public property

has become so rampant during such direct actions called by

organizations. 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 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 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 flaw can be

remedied to a great extent by making an additional

provision in PDPP 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. At the same time, no innocent person, in spite of

his being a leader of the organization shall be made to suffer

for the actions done by 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 recommend that prosecutions should be

required to prove (i) that those accused were the leaders

or office bearers of the organisation which called out 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

are arraigned in the case that they have abetted the

commission of offence. However, the accused in su ch

case shall not be liable to conviction if he proves that (i)

he was in no way connected with the action called by his

8

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.‖

In respect of (iv)

10. ―The Committee considered other means of adducing

evidence for averting unmerited acquittals in trials

involving offences under PDPP Act. We felt that one of the

areas to be tapped is evidence through videography in

addition to contemporaneous material that may be available

through the media, such as electronic media. With the

amendments brought in the Evidence Act, through Act 21 of

2000 permitting evidence collected through electronic

devices as admissible in evidence, we wish to recommend

the following:

i) If the officer in charge of a police station or other law

enforcing agency is of opinion that any direct action, either

declared or undeclared has the potential of causing

destruction or damage to public property, he shall avail

himself of the services of video operators. For this purpose

each police station shall be empowered to maintain a panel

of local video operators who could be made available at short

notices.

(ii) The police officer who has the responsibility to act on the

information that a direct action is imminent 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 videographer

to accompany him or any other police officer deputed by him

to the site or any other place wherefrom video shooting can

conveniently be arranged concentrating on the person/

persons indulging in any acts of violence or other acts

causing destruction or damage to any property.

iii) No sooner than the direct action subsides, the police

officer concerned shall authenticate the video by producing

the videographer before the Sub Divisional or Executive

Magistrate who shall record his statement regarding what he

did. The original tapes or CD or other material capable of

displaying the recorded evidence shall be produced before

the said Magistrate. It is open to the 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.

9

The Committee felt that offenders arrested for damaging

public property shall be subjected to a still more stringent

provision for securing bail. The discretion of the court in

granting bail to such persons should be restricted to cases

where the court feels that there are reasonable grounds to

presume that he is not guilty of the offence. This is in tune

with Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

and certain other modern Criminal Law statutes. So we

recommend that Section 5 may be amended for carrying

out the above restriction.

Thus we are of the view that discretion to reduce the

minimum sentence on condition of recording sp ecial

reasons need not be diluted. But, instead of "reasons" the

court should record "special reasons" to reduce the

minimum sentence prescribed.

However, we felt that apart from the penalty of

imprisonment the court should be empowered to impose

a fine which is equivalent to the market value of the

property damaged on the day of the incident. In default

of payment of fine, the offender shall undergo

imprisonment for a further period which shall be

sufficient enough to deter him from opting in favour of

the alternative imprisonment.‖

11. The recommendations according to us are wholesome

and need to be accepted.

12. To effectuate the modalities for preventive action

and adding teeth to enquiry/investigation following

guidelines are to be observed:

As soon as there is a demonstration organized:

(I) The organizer shall meet the police to review and

revise the route to be taken and to lay down conditions

for a peaceful march or protest;

(II)All weapons, including knives, lathis and the like shall

be prohibited;

(III) An undertaking is to be provided by the organizers

to ensure a peaceful march with marshals at each

relevant junction;

(IV) The police and State Government shall ensure

videograph of such protests to the maximum extent

possible;

(V) The person in charge to supervise the demonstration

shall be the SP (if the situation is confined to the

10

district) and the highest police officer in the State,

where the situation stretches beyond one district;

(VI) In the event that demonstrations tu rn violent, the

officer-in-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.

(VII) The police shall immediately inform the State

Government with reports on the events, including

damage, if any, caused .

(VIII) 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

report in the High Court or Supreme Court as the case

may be for the Court in question to take suo motu

action.

13. So far as the Committee headed by Mr. F.S. Nariman

is concerned the recommendations and the views are

essentially as follows:

"There is a connection between tort and crime - the purpose

of the criminal law is to protect the public interest and

punish wrongdoers, the purpose of tort-law is to vindicate

the rights of the individual and compensate the victim for

loss, injury or damage suffered by him: however - the

distinction in purpose between criminal law and the law of

tort is not entirely crystal-clear, and it has been developed

from case-to-case. The availability of exemplary damages in

certain torts (for instance) suggest an overtly punitive

function - but one thing is clear: tort and criminal law have

always shared a deterrent function in relation to wrongdoing.

The entire history of the development of the tort law shows a

continuous tendency, which is naturally not uniform in all

common law countries, to recognise as worthy of legal

protection, interests which were previously not protected at

all or were infrequently protected and it is unlikely that this

tendency has ceased or is going to cease in future. There are

dicta both ancient and modern that categories of tort are not

closed and that novelty of a claim is no defence. But

generally, the judicial process leading to recognition of new

tort situations is slow and concealed for judges are cautious

in making innovations and they seldom proclaim their

creative role. Normally, a new principle is judicially accepted

to accommodate new ideas of social welfare or public policy

only after they have gained their recognition in the society

11

for example in extra judicial writings and even then the

decision accepting the new principle is supported mainly by

expansion or restriction of existing principles which

‗gradually receive a new content and at last a new form‘.

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 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.

This Committee is of the view that it is in the spirit of

the observation in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India that this

Court needs to lay down principles on which liability

could be fastened and damages assessed in cases in

which due to behaviour of mobs and riotous groups

public and private property is vandalized and loss of life

and injury is occasioned to innocent persons. These are

clearly "unusual situations", which have arisen and likely to

arise in future and need to be provided for in the larger

interest of justice.

It is on the principles set out above that (it is suggested) that

the Hon'ble Court should frame guidelines and venture to

evolve new principles (of liability) to meet situations that

have already arisen in the past and are likely to arise again

in future, so that speedy remedies become available to

persons affected by loss of life, injury and loss of properties,

public or private, as a result of riots and civil commotions.

Damages in the law of torts in India include:

(a) damages based on the concept of restituto in

interregnum to enable total recompense; and

(b) exemplary damages‖

14. The basic principles as suggested by Nariman

Committee are as follows which we find to be

appropriate:

(1) The basic principle for measure of damages in torts (i.e.

wrongs) in property is that there should be ‗restituto in

interregnum‘ which conveys the idea of ―making whole‖.

(2) Where any injury to property is to be compensated by

damages, in settling the sum of money to be given for

reparation by way of damages the Court should as nearly as

possible get at that sum of money which will put the party

12

who has suffered, in the same position as he would have

been in if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is

now getting his compensation or reparation.

(3) In this branch of the law, the principle of restitution in

interregnum has been described as the "dominant" rule of

law. Subsidiary rules can only be justified if they give effect

to that rule.

(3.1) In actions in tort where damages are at large i.e. not

limited to the pecuniary loss that can be specifically proved,

the Court may also take into account the defendant's

motives, conduct and manner of committing the tort, and

where these have aggravated the plaintiff's damage e.g. by

injuring his proper feelings of dignity, safety and pride -

aggravated damages may be awa rded. Aggravated damages

are designed to compensate the plaintiff for his wounded

feelings-they must be distinguished from exemplary damages

which are punitive in nature and which (under English Law)

may be awarded in a limited category of cases.

(3.2) "Exemplary damages" has been a controversial topic for

many years. Such damages are not compensatory but are

awarded to punish the defendant and to deter him and

others from similar behaviour in the future. The law in

England (as restated in Rookes v. Barnar d affirmed in

Cassell v. Broome) is that such damages are not generally

allowed. In England they can only be awarded in three

classes of cases (i) where there is oppressive, arbitrary or

unconstitutional action by servants of the Government; (ii)

where the defendants conduct has been calculated by him to

make a profit for himself which may well exceed the

compensation payable to the claimant; and (iii) where such

damages are provided by statute.

(3.3) In the decision in Kuddus v. Chief Constable of

Leicestershire Constabulary, the most recent judgment of the

House of Lords, the Law Lords did not say that in the future

the award of exemplary damages should be restricted only in

the cases mentioned in Rookes v. Barnard (as affirmed in

Cassell v. Broome). Lord Nicholls in his speech at page 211

stated that:

"68. ...the essence of the conduct constituting the Court's

discretionary jurisdiction to award exemplary damages is

conduct which was such as to be an outrageous disregard of

the claimant's rights.

(3.4) " In this committee's view, the principle that Courts

in India are not limited in the law of torts merely to

what English Courts say or do, is attracted to the

present situation. This Committee is of the view that

13

this Hon'ble Court should evolve a principle of liability -

punitive in nature - on account of vandalism and rioting

leading to damages/destruction of property public and

private. Damages must also be such as would deter

people from similar behaviour in the future: after all this

is already the policy of the law as stated in the

Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984, and is

foreshadowed in the order of this Hon'ble Court dated

18-06-2007 making the present reference.

(3.5) In a Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort 17

th

Edn. (at pp.

948-49) the authors set out the future of exemplary damages

by quoting from the decision in Kuddus v. Chief Constable of

Leicestershire Constabulary where two Law Lords Lord

Nicholls and Lord Hutton expressed the view that such

damages might have a valuable role to play in dealing with

outrageous behaviour. The authors point out that the

boundaries between the civil and criminal law are not rigid

or immutable and the criminal process alone is not an

adequate mechanism to deter willful wrong -doing. The

acceptability of the principle of compensation with

punishment appears to have been confirmed by the Privy

Council (in Gleaner Co Ltd. Vs. Abrahams AC at 54) where it

was felicitously said that: (AC P.647, para 54)

―54. …oil and vinegar may not mix in solution but they

combine to make an acceptable salad dressing."

(3.6) The authors go on to say that exemplary damages

certainly enjoy a continuing vitality in other common law

jurisdictions, which, by and large, have rejected the various

shackles imposed on them in England and extended them to

other situations: thus punitive damages was held to be

available in Australia "in cases of "outrageous" acts of

negligence. The Law Commission of Australia has also

concluded - after a fairly evenly balanced consultation-that

exemplary damages should be retained where the defendant

"had deliberately and outrageously disregarded the plaintiffs

rights.‖

15. In the absence of legislation the following guidelines

are to be adopted to assess damages:

(I) Wherever a mass destruction to property takes place

due to protests or thereof, the High Court may issue suo

motu action and set up a machinery to investigate the

damage caused and to award compensation related

thereto.

(II) Where there is more than one state involved, such

action may be taken by the Supreme Court.

14

(III) In each case, the High Court or Supreme Court, as

the case may be, appoint a sitting or retired High Court

judge or a sitting or retired District judge as a Claims

Commissioner to estimate the damages and investigate

liability.

(IV) An Assessor may be appointed to assist the Claims

Commissioner.

(V) The Claims Commissioner and the Assessor may seek

instructions from the High Court or Supreme Court as

the case may be, to summon the existing video or other

recordings from private and public sources to pinpoint

the damage and establish nexus with the perpetrators of

the damage.

(VI) The principles of absolute liability shall apply once

the nexus with the event that precipitated the damage is

established.

(VII) The liability will be borne by the actual perpetrators

of the crime as well as organisers of the event giving rise

to the liability - to be shared, as finally determined by

the High Court or Supreme Court as the case may be.

(VIII) Exemplary damages may be awarded to an extent

not greater than twice the amount of the damages liable

to be paid.

(IX) Damages shall be assessed for:

(a) damages to public property;

(b) damages to private property;

(c) damages causing injury or death to a person or

persons;

(d) Cost of the actions by the authorities and police to

take preventive and other actions.

(X) The Claims Commissioner will make a report to the

High Court or Supreme Court which will determine the

liability after hearing the parties.

16. The recommendations of Justice K.T. Thomas

Committee and Mr F.S. Nariman Committee above which

have the approval of this Court shall immediately

become operative. They shall be operative as guidelines.

xxx

28. The present case is one in which guidelines are

necessary:

(i) to the police to enforce statutory duties, and

(ii) to create a special purpose vehicle in respect of damages

for riot cases.

15

This issue was examined by the Nariman Committee which

considered:

―… where (in such cases) there is destruction/damage to

properties and loss of lives or injuries to persons—

(i) the true measures of such damages,

(ii) the modalities for imposition of such damages, and…‖

(p. 2 of the Report).

29. These guidelines shall cease to be operative as and

when appropriate legislation consistent with the

guidelines indicated above are put in place and/or any

fast track mechanism is created by the statute(s).‖

(emphasis supplied)

After having noted the recommendations made by the

Committees appointed by the Court, in paragraphs 16, 28 and

29 the Court declared that the stated recommendations had

the approval of the Court and shall immediately become

operative.

4. Taking a cue from this decision, the petitioners have

prayed for the reliefs reproduced in paragraph 2 above. To

buttress the reliefs in the writ petition, the petitioners have

articulated some suggestions to ameliorate and curb the

occurrence of such events. The suggestions given by the

petitioners read thus:

16

―A. Regarding protection to freedom of speech and

expression

1. Any protest against creative art including movies,

drama, literature, music or the like, leading to an illegal ban

of the same by use of force, threat or veiled threat etc. are

not permissible. Any person or group who is aggrieved by

any creative expression of any sort shall only seek legal

remedy by resorting to the process of law.

2. State or authorities under state are not permitted to

ban or prohibit any creative expression on the ground of law

and order problem.

B. Regarding modalities for preventive action

3. The organizer of any public meeting, demonstration,

procession, march etc. shall intimate the police and inform

the route to be taken through e-mail or letter.

4. The police officer in charge, as far as possible, shall

allow the request and may review and revise the route to be

taken and lay down conditions for a peaceful march or

protest. There shall be absolute prohibition of possession of

knives, lathis, guns or any other weapons by a nyone

participating in the march.

5. The police shall ensure videography of such protests

and the videos thus recorded shall be transmitted to a

central server under copy to the police headquarters with

date and time.

6. In the event of demonstrations turning violent, the

officer-in-charge shall also gather such further information

from the media and others on the incidents in question, and

media and public shall support police by sharing such

information.

7. The police shall immediately inform the State

Government with reports on the events, including damage, if

any, caused.

C. Regarding reporting of cases and police action

8. The Police shall maintain an online ‗cyber-information

reception window‘ on its website/app enabling people to

send instances of mob violence, destructive acts and hate

speech in whatever form, including the spurious videos and

face news. The police shall also make their own

arrangements for photographing violent protests, and take

immediate steps to find out the identity of the per sons

involved in such activity.

9. If any such incident is reported to Police, the police

shall without delay register FIR with the names of the

persons so identified and arrest those persons who are

17

involved in the violent protests or hate speech, and follow the

process of law.

10. Provision shall be made by the State Police for online

registration of FIR and information regarding this facility

shall be widely disseminated so that the common man is

encouraged to report offences without facing the hurdles of

procedural formalities. For constructive use of the facility,

identity proof and verification via OTP to the registered

mobile number or email id of the user may be mandated.

11. The police shall immediately conduct an investigation

into the genuineness of the audio and video content within a

period of three days and if contents are prima facie found to

be true, the accused shall be arrested again (if already

released on bail) who shall thereafter be entitled for bail only

in the event of depositing the amount commensurate with

the loss/damage, caused by such act/s directly and

indirectly, as assessed by the police.

12. State shall take steps to establish sufficient number of

forensic labs to verify the authenticity of social media

content and audio/video content which may be in issue in

such cases.

13. If any person or organization including a political party

calls for any violent protest aiming to destroy private

property, or calls for any protest that subsequently results in

destruction of private property, the FIR shall be registered

showing the names of the leaders or persons who expressly

call for such protests. In cases where such a call was made

through the official spokesperson or through the official

social media account/page of the individual, political party

or organization, the charges shall be filed against the chief

office bearers of such political party or organization as the

case may be.

14. Any person who through speech, statement or

otherwise appeals or calls for

(a) violent protests or

(b) destruction of property or

(c) use of force to stop citizens from exercising their

fundamental rights or

(d) incitement to hatred

Shall be immediately arrested and prosecuted under relevant

provisions of law including S.153A, 295A read with section

298 IPC as the case may be.

15. The progress report of the investigation in the above

mentioned cases shall be made to the District

Collector/Chief Judicial Magistrate and shall also be

18

uploaded on the website of the Director General of Police, on

a weekly basis.

16. If anyone is acquitted in any such case, the State shall

file an appeal against the acquittal.

17. The judgment of acquittal or conviction shall be

uploaded on the website of the police where the progress

report of investigation is uploaded.

D. Regarding liability of organizations, groups etc.

18. If any protest that resulted in destruction of property

was organized by a gro up or by members of any

organization, the office bearers of such group or organization

shall within 24 hours of the incident, report to the police

station/s in whose jurisdiction the disruptive activities took

place.

19. The office bearers shall give all information about such

protest to the police, including the call for protest and the

details of the local leaders of such organization.

20. They may make a statement disowning the act of such

people who were involved in such protest and in case such a

statement is given, such of the members who are disowned

shall be expelled from the organization with immediate effect.

21. In case no statement of disownment is tendered or

disowned members are not expelled, the office bearers and

leaders of such organization shall also be liable for

prosecution under 120B of the IPC.

22. Any glorification or patronization of hate speech or

violence or accused by any person by means of words or acts

of any form shall also be liable for contempt of court.

E. Regarding accountability of police

23. If the police fail to register FIR or conduct investigation

and submit charge sheet within a period of 90 days in any of

the above mentioned instances, the Director General of

Police shall be personally liable for contempt of court.

24. Departmental action shall be initiated against those

police officers who are apparently inactive during such

protests and do not take necessary action as required within

a period of one month from the date of incident.

25. Any delay in taking appropriate action by the police

should be explained with reasons by the DGP and necessary

communication to this effect shall be made through public

notice including through official website of the Police.

F. Regarding claims tribunal and award of

compensation

26. The owners of private property that is destroyed by

mob violence/protestors or their representatives in interest

shall be entitled to claim compensation for destruction

19

caused to their property, movable and immovable. The

claims for compensation for destruction of private property

and the claim for restoration costs shall be filed before a

Claims Tribunal which shall be constituted by the State

Government to investigate the damage caused and to award

compensation related thereto. The Claims Tribunal shal l

comprise of a sitting or retired High Court judge or a sitting

or retired District judge (Chairperson) and such other

members (Assessors) as may be prescribed by the

government. The Tribunal shall follow a time bound

summary procedure as may be prescribe d by the

Government so that the claims are disbursed within 6

months from the occurrence.

27. The State Government and Director General of Police

shall hand over to the Claims Tribunal the video or other

recordings from private and public sources that wou ld

enable the Claims Tribunal to pinpoint the damage and

establish nexus with the perpetrators of the damage.

28. The principles of absolute liability shall apply once the

nexus with the event that precipitated the damage is

established.

29. Damages shall be assessed for:

(a) damages to public property;

(b) damages to private property;

(c) damages causing injury or death to a person or

persons;

(d) Cost of the actions by the authorities and police to

take preventive and other actions.

30. Exemplary damages may be awarded to an extent not

greater than twice the amount of the damages liable to be

paid.

31. The Tribunal shall specify in its award the amount

towards compensation, amount towards the costs for

restoration of property and exemplary damages separately.

32. The liability to pay compensation shall be apportioned

by the Tribunal amongst the following persons:

(i) persons who actually committed the act of destruction

(ii) persons who made an appeal for such destruction

(iii) the office bearers of the organizations in which such

persons are members whereof, in case the

organizations do not make statement of disownment

and expel such members.

33. The person/s who is/are declared liable by the

Tribunal shall also be ordered to pay 10% of the amount

awarded as costs for meeting the expenses of the Tribunal.

20

34. It shall be the responsibility of the State Government

to restore all properties so destroyed to its original position

within a period of 12 months. The cost shall be realized from

persons declared liable by the Tribunal as arrears of land

revenue.

G. Protection of non -violent democratic form of

processions, march and protests

35. All democratic protests without violence, against the

government policy/action or for social causes shall be duly

respected and shall not incur any liability.

36. Raising slogans against the government or its leaders

shall not be treated as hate speech or as an offence. The

protesters shall have the right to carry posters, banners,

effigies etc. to show their mark of protest.‖

5. We have heard Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General

for India, as also Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor

General, on behalf of the respondent No.1 Union of India and

the respondent States.

6. Mr. Venugopal is unequivocal in his submission that

violent protests which lead to loss of life and damage to public

and private properties are against the spirit of democracy. He

submits that pursuant to the judgment in In Re: Destruction

of Public and Private Properties (supra), the Union of India

has advised the respondent states to follow the guidelines laid

21

down therein vide letter dated 6

th May, 2013

2. Further, a Bill is

being introduced to bring in certain amendments to the PDPP

Act in line with the said guidelines, which is currently under

2

―ANNEXURE-2 No.11034/01/2013-IS-IV

Government of India Ministry of Hone Affairs IS-I Division

North Block, New Delhi the

6

th

May, 2013

To The Chief Secretaries

All State Govts./UTs

Subject: Destruction and Damage to Public Properties in the name of agitations, Bandhs, Hartals etc.- guidelines for

prevention of such destructive activities – regarding.

Sir/madam

The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India taking a serious note of various instances where there was large scale

destruction of public and private properties in the name of agitations, bandhs hartals and the like vide order dated

16.04.2009 in W.P. (Crl.) No.77/2007 in the matter of Destruction of Public & Private Properties Vs. State of A.P. and

Ors. directed that the following guidelines should be observed as soon as there is a demonstration organized to

effectuate the modalities for preventive action and adding teeth to enquiry/investigation:-

(i) If the officer 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 public

property, he shall avail himself of the services of video operators. For this purpose each police station

shall be empowered to maintain a panel of local video operators who could be made available at short

notices.

(ii) The police officer who has the responsibility to act on the information that a direct action is imminent

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 wherefrom 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 concerned shall authenticate the video by

producing the video grapher before the Sub divisional or Executive Magistrate who shall rec ord his

statement regarding what he did for preparing the video graph. The original tapes or |CD or other

material capable of displaying the recorded evidence shall be produced before the said Magistrate. It is

open to the 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.

(iv) The organizer shall meet the police to review and revise the route to be taken and to lay down conditions

for a peaceful march or protest.

(v) All weapons, including knives, lathis and the like shall be prohibited.

(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.

(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 officer-in-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.

(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.

2. Though ‗Police‘ and ‗Public Order‘ are State subjects under the Seventh Schedule (List-II) to the Constitution

of India, the Union Government attaches highest importance to prevention of crime. Therefore has been

advising the State Governments/Union Territory Administration from time to time to give more focused

attention to the administration of the criminal justice system with emphasis on prevention and control of

crime.

3. In view of the Hon‘ble Supreme Courts directions, all the State Movements/UTs are advised to take

appropriate steps for effective prevention, detection, registration, investigation and prosecution of all crimes

within their jurisdiction.

Copy to: Yours faithfully.

The Pri. Secretary/Secretary (Home) of all State Govts./UTs. (Rakesh Singh) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India

The Director General of Police of all State Govt./UTs‖ Tele No.23092736

22

discussion with the stakeholders. The Union of India vide

letter dated 26

th March, 2018

3 has also requested the States

and Union Territories to appoint one or more

district/additional district judges, in consultation with their

respective High Courts, to deal with cases of damage to public

property on a whole-time or part-time basis. Pending the

outcome of the aforesaid discussions, and as an interim

measure, the learned Attorney General has also given certain

written suggestions to increase accountability and timelines

for law-enforcement bodies in relation to such acts of mob

violence. We shall advert to the proposed amendments to the

PDPP Act and the written suggestions shortly.

3

“ANNEXURE-3

No.24013/12/C.C./2013-CSR.III/3997-4105 Ministry of Home Affairs

(CS Division)

Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, India Gate, New Delhi, dated the 26

th

March, 2018.

To,

Chief Secretaries of all State Governments & UT Administrations.

Subject:- Supreme Court‘s Judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No.55 of 2013 filed by Koshy Jacob Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Sir,

The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated 28-11-2017 in the above mentioned writ petition,

on the issue of dealing with cases of damage to public property has observed that one or more

district/additional district judges can be appointed by the State Government in consultation with the High

Court to deal with such issues 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.

2. It is therefore requested that States/UTs may comply with the directions of the Supreme Court‘s

order.

Yours faithfully,

(Krishan Kumar)

Deputy Secretary (CS-I)

Tel:23075291

End.- As above

Copy to;-

1. Home Secretaries of all State Governments & UT Administrations

2. DGPs of all State Governments & UT Administrations.‖

23

7. The present petition highlights the disconcerting rise in

the protests and demonstrations by private entities targeting,

amongst others, exhibition of films and social functions and

including sections of people, on moral grounds, in particular,

using threats and actual violence. In addition to being patently

illegal and unlawful, such acts of violence highlight a deeper

malaise, one of intolerance towards others‘ views which then

results in attempts to suppress alternate view points, artistic

integrity and the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed

by the Constitution of India. Indeed, the people who perpetrate

such actions, especially against private parties, do so without

fear of consequence and reprisal, probably believing that

private parties do not have the wherewithal to hold them

accountable for such actions. In such situations, the State

must step in and perform its duty by taking measures to

prevent such actions from occurring in the first place,

ensuring that law-enforcement agencies exercise their power

to bring the guilty parties to book and imposing time-bound

and adequate punishment for any lapses. This Court has time

24

and time again underscored the supremacy of law and that

one must not forget that administration of law can only be

done by law-enforcing agencies recognised by law. Nobody has

the right to become a self-appointed guardian of the law and

forcibly administer his or her own interpretation of the law on

others, especially not with violent means. Mob violence runs

against the very core of our established legal principles since it

signals chaos and lawlessness and the State has a duty to

protect its citizens against the illegal and reprehensible acts of

such groups. Very recently, we have dealt with almost similar

grievances in Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India &

Ors.

4

8. We must first advert to the exposition in In Re:

Destruction of Public and Private Properties (supra), and

discern as to whether the guidelines enunciated therein are

adequate to meet the challenges under consideration and as to

what extent the said recommendations have been

4 Judgment dated 17

th

July, 2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016; AIR 2018 SC 3354

25

implemented. We also have to examine whether this Court

ought to direct any additional measures.

9. There is a broad consensus that the recommendations

made and directions given in In Re: Destruction of Public

and Private Properties (supra), at paragraph 3 hereinabove

are comprehensive to deal with the issue of large-scale

destruction of private and public properties which unwinds

during violent protests and demonstrations. We find that the

Committee‘s recommendations noted in the said judgment

traverse the length and breadth of the issue at hand and, if

implemented in their entirety, would go a long way in

removing the bane of violence caused against persons and

property. As far as implementation of the said

recommendations, is concerned, and as stated earlier, the

learned Attorney General‘s submission is that the Union is

mindful of the dictum in In Re: Destruction of Public and

Private Properties (supra), and has advised the States to

follow the same in its letter and spirit and also drafted a

bill for initiating legislative changes in conformity

26

with the recommendations of this Court, namely, The

Prevention of Damage to Public Property (Amendment) Bill,

2015, which is currently being examined in consultation with

the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Bill reads as under:

“ANNEXURE – 1

THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO PUBLIC PROPERTY

(AMENDMENT) BILL, 2015

A

BILL

to amend the Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-sixth

year of the Republic of India as follows:-

Short title and

commencement.

1. (1) This Act may be called the

Prevention of Damage to Public Property

(Amendment) Act, 2015.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as

the Central Government may, by notification

in the Official Gazette, appoint.

Amendment of Act

3 of 1984.

2. In the Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as

the principal Act), after the words ―and with

fine‖, wherever they occur, the words ―which

shall be equivalent to the market value of the

public property damaged‖ shall be inserted.

3 of 1984

Amendment of

Section 2.

3. In the principle Act, in section 2, after

clause (a), the following clause shall be

inserted, -namely :-

(aa) ―prescribed‖ means prescribed by rules

made under this Act;‖.

Amendment of

Section3.

4. In section 3 of the principal Act, in sub-

section (2), in the proviso, for the words ―for

reasons‖, the words ―for special reasons‖ shall

be substituted.

Insertion of new

sections 4A, 4B,

4C and 40 [sic]

5. After section 4 of the principal Act the

following sections shall be inserted, namely :-

Presumption

against accused.

―4A. Where an offence under this Act has

been committed and it is shown that the

27

public property has been damaged, as direct

consequence of such offence and the accused-

participated in the commission of such

offence, it shall be presumed unless the

contrary is shown, that the accused had

committed such offence.

Abetment of 4B. Where damage to public property is

caused in consequence of demonstration,

hartal or bandh called by any organization,

the office-bearers of such organization shall

be deemed to be guilty of the commission of

the offence of abetment of an offence

punishable under this Act and shall be liable

to be proceeded against and punished

accordingly.

Provided that nothing contained to this

Section shall render may such office bearer

liable to any punishment provided in this Act,

if he proves that the offence was committed

without his knowledge or that be had

exercised all due diligence to prevent the

commission of such offence.

Punishment for

abetment of

mischief

4C. Whoever abets an offen ce punishable

under this Act shall be punished with the

punishment provided for that offence under

this Act.

Procedure for

videography of

incidents of

Demonstration.

4D. Where a call for demonstration, hartal or

bandh has been given by an organization and

the officer-no charge of a police station has

reasons to believe that damage to the public

property is likely to be caused or there is

imminent danger of such damage, he shall,-

(i) Make such arrangements for the

videography of the area where the

demonstration, hartal or bandh is proposed

to be held;

(ii) Deposit the soft copies of videography,

in such manner, with the concerned Sub -

Divisional Magistrate or Executive Magistrate

who may entrust the same to said police

officer or any other person;

(iii) Get, the statement of the Videographer

recorded before the concerned Sub-Divisional

Magistrate or Executive Magistrate in such

manner, as may be prescribed.‖.

Amendment of 6. In section 5 of the principal Act-

28

Section5.

(i) After the words and figure ―or section

4‖, the words and figure ―or section 4B‖ shall

be inserted;

(ii) After the words ―for such release‖, the

words ―and there are reasonable grounds to

believe that he is not guilty of the said

offence‖ shall be inserted.

Insertion of new

sections 6A and

6B

7. After section 6 of the principal Act, the

following sections shall be inserted, namely :-

Power to make

rules

―6A (1) The Central Government may, by

notification in the Official Gazette, make rules

for carrying out the provisions of this Act,

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the

generality of the foregoing power, such rules

may ―provide for all or any – of the following

matters, namely :-

(a) the arrangement for videography under

section 4D; and

(b) the manner of depositing the soft copies

of videography and recording the statement of

the videographer under section 4D.

Rules to be laid

before Parliament

6B. Every rule made by the Central

Government under this Act shall be laid, as

soon as may be after it is made, before each

House of Parliament, while it is in session, for

a total period of thirty days, which may be

comprised in one session or in two or more

successive sessions, and if, before the expiry

of the session immediately following the

session or the successive sessions aforesaid,

both Houses agree in making any

modification in the rule or both Houses agree

that the ride should not be made, the rule

shall thereafter have effect only in such

modified form or be of no effect, as the case

may be; so, however, that any such

modification or annulment shall be without

prejudice to the validity of anything

previously done under that rule.‖ ‖

29

For the time being, we do not wish to comment on the efficacy

of the proposed legislative changes including as to whether it

would fully address the points noted in the

guidelines/recommendations in In Re: Destruction of Public

and Private Properties (supra). We keep that issue open to

be decided in appropriate proceedings if and when the

occasion arises. We hope that the said Bill will be taken to its

logical end in the right earnest.

10. On the issue of whether additional measures need to be

introduced, the learned Attorney General has also made

certain suggestions which can be implemented as interim

measures, pending the outcome of the aforestated Bill, to

fasten accountability and prescribe timelines for the law-

enforcement agencies. The same are set out hereunder:

―12. While the Union of India is still considering the

amendments, as an interim measure, it is suggested that this

Court may consider issuing the following directions:

a. The offence is covered under Section 3 of the PDPP Act,

which provides that whoever commits mischief by doing any

act in respect of any public property shall be punished with

imprisonment and fine. Mischief has been defined under

Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code as – ―whoever with

intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause,

wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person,

causes the destruction of any property, or any such change

in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or

30

diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously,

commits ―mischief‖.

b. This Court may consider the example of the Delhi

Development Authority, where, in order to deal with illegal

encroachments, the DDA has divided the city into various

zones and placed them under different officers who would be

held responsible in case there were building law violations in

their respective zones. This has had the result of improving

accountability and reduced instances of illegal encroachment.

c. The liability for compensation has to be fixed on the

organizer(s) irrespective of whether he was himself the

perpetrator of the act which caused the damage.

d. In addition, the actual perpetrators who caused the

damage will also be liable to pay compensation.

e. Accordingly, the State Governments may be directed to pin

the responsibility of maintaining law and order during such

protests, bands, etc. on the Senior Superintendent of police

in charge of that district. If this is done, in all future cases,

the Courts can seek a response directly from the SSP

regarding video recordings, details of FIRs filed, steps taken

etc.

f. In addition, the Court may direct, each police station to

maintain a panel of local video operators who could be made

available at short notices to videograph the incidents of

violence and damage to public property etc.

g. Further, the States can consider setting up helplines to

specifically deal with instances of violence or damage to

property caused during such protests, and have a force that

immediately deals with complaints made on such helplines.‖

11. At this stage, it would be apposite to also consider the

judgment rendered by a three-Judge bench of this Court in

Tehseen S. Poonawalla (supra), where this Court had to deal

with a specific type of mob violence and the resulting

restraints on personal liberty and free speech. In that case, the

petitioners had prayed for a writ to take measures to curb

incidents of lynching and mob violence in respect of cattle

31

trade and related activities. At the macro level, the

dispensation to tackle the incidents of targeted violence and

commission of offences affecting the human body and against

private and public property by mobs operating under the garb

of self-assumed and self-appointed protectors of law would be

similar to that of damage caused due to mob violence for any

other cause. Taking note of burgeoning instances of

vigilantism and lynching, this Court propounded that states

had the duty to ensure that individuals or groups did not take

the law into their own hands to prevent untoward incidents

and to prevent crime which may include damage caused to

property. In that context, the Court observed:

―19. Mob vigilantism and mob violence have to be prevented

by the governments by taking strict action and by the vigil

society who ought to report such incidents to the state

machinery and the police instead of taking the law into their

own hands. Rising intolerance and growing polarisation

expressed through spate of incidents of mob violence cannot

be permitted to become the normal way of life or the normal

state of law and order in the country. Good governance and

nation building require sustenance of law and order which is

intricately linked to the preservation of the marrows of our

social structure. In such a situation, the State has a

sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens from unruly elements

and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism

with utmost sincerity and true commitment to address and

curb such incidents which must reflect in its actions and

schemes.

32

20. Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological

dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it

results in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and non-

State actors cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the

law enforcing agency. A fabricated identity with bigoted

approach sans acceptance of plurality and diversity

results in provocative sentiments and displ ay of

reactionary retributive attitude transforming itself into

dehumanisation of human beings. Such an atmosphere is

one in which rational debate, logical discussion and

sound administration of law eludes thereby manifesting

clear danger to various freedoms including freedom of

speech and expression. One man's freedom of thought,

action, speech, expression, belief, conscience and

personal choices is not being tolerated by the other and

this is due to lack of objective rationalisation of acts and

situations. In this regard, it has been aptly said:- "Freedom

of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; When

this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society

is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins."

21. Freedom of speech and exp ression in different forms

is the élan vital of sustenance of all other rights and is

the very seed for germinating the growth of democratic

views. Plurality of voices celebrates the constitutionalist idea

of a liberal democracy and ought not to be suppressed. That

is the idea and essence of our nation which cannot be, to

borrow a line from Rabindranath Tagore, ―broken up into

fragments by narrow domestic walls‖ of caste, creed, race,

class or religion. Pluralism and tolerance are essential

virtues and constitute the building blocks of a truly free and

democratic society. It must be emphatically stated that a

dynamic contemporary constitutional democracy imbibes the

essential feature of accommodating pluralism in thought and

approach so as to preserve cohesi veness and unity.

Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic mindset sows the

seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect on freedom of

thought and expression. Hence, tolerance has to be

fostered and practised and not allowed to be diluted in

any manner.

22. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others , K.

Jagannatha Shetty, J., although in a different context,

referred to the decision of the European Court of Human

Rights in Handyside v. United Kingdom wherein it has

33

been held thus in the context of Article 10 of the European

Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):-

"The court‘s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost

attention to the principles characterizing a ‗democratic

society‘. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the

essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic

conditions for its progress and for the development of every

man. Subject to Article 10(2), it is applicable not only to

‗information‘ or ‗ideas‘ that are favourably received or

regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but

also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any

sector of the population. Such are the demands of that

pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which

there is no ‗democratic society‘."

23. In a rights based approach to constitutional legitimacy,

the right to life and liberty is considered paramount and,

therefore, democratic governments must propel and drive

towards stronger foothold for liberties so as to ensure

sustenance of higher values of democracy thereby paving the

path for a spontaneous constitutional order. Crime knows no

religion and neither the perpetrator nor the victim can be

viewed through the lens of race, caste, class or religion. The

State has a positive obligation to protect the fundamental

rights and freedoms of all individuals irrespective of race,

caste, class or religion. The State has the primary

responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and

multiculturalistic social order so as to allow free play of ideas

and beliefs and co-existence of mutually contradictory

perspectives. Stifling free voices can never bode well for a

true democracy. It is essential to build societies which

embrace diversity in all spheres and rebuild trust of the

citizenry in the State machinery.”

(emphasis supplied)

12. Having observed thus, t he Court issued extensive

guidelines in the nature of preventive, remedial and punitive

measures to curb incidents of mob lynching and vigilantism as

set out hereinbelow:

34

―40. In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to issue the

following guidelines:-

A. Preventive Measures

(i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police

officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as

Nodal Officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be

assisted by one of the DSP rank officers in the district for

taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and

lynching. They shall constitute a special task force so as to

procure intelligence reports about the people who are likely

to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate

speeches, provocative statements and fake news.

(ii) The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts,

Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching

and mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say,

in the last five years. The process of identification should be

done within a period of three weeks from the date of this

judgment, as such time period is sufficient to get the task

done in today's fast world of data collection.

(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned

States shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers

of the concerned districts for ensuring that the Officer In-

charge of the Police Stations of the identified areas are extra

cautious if any instance of mob violence within their

jurisdiction comes to their notice.

(iv) The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular

meetings (at least once a month) with the local intelligence

units in the district along with all Station House Officers of

the district so as to identify the existence of the tendencies of

vigilantism, mob violence or lynching in the district and take

steps to prohibit instances of dissemination of offensive

material through different social media platforms or any

other means for inciting such tendencies. The Nodal Officer

shall also make efforts to eradicate hostile environment

against any community or caste which is targeted in such

incidents.

(v) The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home

Department of the concerned States shall take regular review

meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers

and State Police Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall

bring to the notice of the DGP any inter -district co-

ordination issues for devising a strategy to tackle lynching

and mob violence related issues at the State level.

(vi) It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob

to disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of

CrPC, which, in his opinion, has a tendency to ca use

35

violence or wreak the havoc of lynching in the disguise of

vigilantism or otherwise.

(vii) The Home Department of the Government of India must

take initiative and work in co-ordination with the State

Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies

and by involving all the stake holders to identify the

measures for prevention of mob violence and lynching

against any caste or community and to implement the

constitutional goal of social justice and the Rule of Law.

(viii) The Director General of Police shall issue a circular to

the Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling

in the sensitive areas keeping in view the incidents of the

past and the intelligence obtained by the office of the

Director General. It singularly means that there should be

seriousness in patrolling so that the anti-social elements

involved in such crimes are discouraged and remain within

the boundaries of law thus fearing to even think of taking

the law into their own hands.

(ix) The Central and the State Go vernments should

broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms

including the official websites of the Home Department and

Police of the States that lynching and mob violence of any

kind shall invite serious consequence under the law.

(x) It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well as

the State Governments to take steps to curb and stop

dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages,

videos and other material on various social media platforms

which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of

any kind.

(xi) The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A

of IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against

persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive

messages and videos having content which is likely to incite

mob violence and lynching of any kind.

(xii) The Central Government shall also issue appropriate

directions/advisories to the State Governments which would

reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the

measures to be taken.

B. Remedial Measures

(i) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police,

if it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of

lynching or mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional

police station shall immediately cause to lodge an FIR,

without any undue delay, under the relevant provisions of

IPC and/or other provisions of law.

36

(ii) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose

police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate

the Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure

that there is no further harassment of the family members of

the victim(s).

(iii) Investigation in such offences shall be personally

monitored by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to

ensure that the investigation is carried out effectively and

the charge-sheet in such cases is filed within the statutory

period from the date of registration of the FIR or arrest of the

accused, as the case may be.

(iv) The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob

violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the

provisions of Section 357A of CrPC within one month from

the date of this judgment. In the said scheme for

computation of compensation, the State Governments shall

give due regard to the nature of bodily injury, psychological

injury and loss of earnings including loss of opportunities of

employment and education and expenses incurred on

account of legal and medical expenses. The said

compensation scheme must also have a provision for interim

relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of the

deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob

violence/lynching.

(v) The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be

specifically tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts

earmarked for that purpose in each district. Such courts

shall hold trial of the case on a day to day basis. The trial

shall preferably be concluded within six months from the

date of taking cognizance. We may hasten to add that this

direction shall apply to even pending cases. The District

Judge shall assign those cases as far as possible to one

jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious disposal

thereof. It shall be the duty of the State Governments and

the Nodal Officers in particular to see that the prosecuting

agency strictly carries out its role in appropriate furtherance

of the trial.

(vi) To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and

lynching, upon conviction of the accused person(s), the trial

court must ordinarily award maximum sentence as provided

for various offences under the provisions of the IPC.

(vii) The courts trying the cases of mob violence and lynching

may, on application by a witness or by the public prosecutor

in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such

measures, as it deems fit, for protection and for concealing

the identity and address of the witness.

37

(viii) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases

of mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice of

any court proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be

heard at the trial in respect of applications such as bail,

discharge, release and parole filed by the accused persons.

They shall also have the right to file written submissions on

conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

(ix) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of

mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or

she so chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice

from amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel under the

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

C. Punitive Measures

(i) Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of

the district administration has failed to comply with the

aforesaid directions in order to prevent and/or investigate

and/or facilitate expeditious trial of any crime of mob

violence and lynching, the same shall be considered as an

act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which

appropriate action must be taken against him/her and not

limited to departmental action under the service rules. The

departmental action shall be taken to its logical conclusion

preferably within six months by the authority of the first

instance.

(ii) In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam Servai

v. State of Tamil Nadu 21 , the States are directed to take

disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is

found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident,

despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident

has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly

apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the

culprits.

41. The measures that are directed to be taken have to be

carried out within four weeks by the Central and the State

Governments. Reports of compliance be filed within the said

period before the Registry of this Court.‖

These recommendations comprehensively set out the manner

in which the State and law-enforcement agencies are expected

to deal with the menace of mob violence specifically lynching

and vigilantism and further, assign responsibility and

38

accountability to officials to curb such incidents as also

punitive measures to deter law enforcement agencies from

shirking their duties.

13. Our attention was also invited to the decision in Koshy

Jacob Vs. Union of India and Ors. ,

5 wherein an identical

direction was sought for implementation of guidelines issued

by this Court In Re: Destruction of Public and Private

Properties (supra). The two-Judge Bench, after adverting to

the stand taken by the Union of India in its reply affidavit and

the statement made by the Attorney General for India,

disposed of the said writ petition in the following terms:

―10. In view of the stand in the counter affidavit and the

statement of learned Attorney General, we do hope that the

law 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 law

may provide for speedy mechanism for criminal liability,

action for administrative failures as well as remedies to the

victims. A suggestion has been made that one or more

district/additional district judges can be appointed by the

State Government in consultation with the High Court 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 proposed law.

5 (2018) 11 SCC 756

39

11. As far as the individual claim of the petitioner is

concerned, the organizers of the agitation are not before this

Court. The petitioner is at liberty to take his remedy at

appropriate forum in accordance with law.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.‖

14. In Tehseen Poonawalla (supra), the Court adverted to

the decision in Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and Ors.,

6

wherein the Court was called upon to address the issue of

honour killing and other forms of honour crimes inflicted on

young couples/families by Khap Panahcayat s. In paragraph

55, the Court issued directions to the States to take measures

to evolve a robust mechanism to meet the challenges of the

agonizing effect of honour crimes by Khap Panchayat s.

Paragraph 55 reads thus:

―55. Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Cou nsel being

assisted by Mr Gaurav Agarwal, has filed certain suggestions

for issuing guidelines. The Union of India has also given

certain suggestions to be taken into account till the

legislation is made. To meet the challenges of the agonising

effect of honour crime, we think that there has to be

preventive, remedial and punitive measures and,

accordingly, we state the broad contours and the modalities

with liberty to the executive and the police administration of

the States concerned to add further measures to evolve a

robust mechanism for the stated purposes:

55.1. Preventive steps

55.1.1. The State Governments should forthwith identify

districts, sub-divisions and/or villages where instances of

6 (2018) 7 SCC 192

40

honour killing or assembly of khap panchayats have been

reported in the recent past, e.g., in the last five years.

55.1.2. The Secretary, Home Department of the States

concerned shall issue directives/advisories to the

Superintendent of Police of the districts concerned for

ensuring that the officer in charge of the police stations of

the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of

inter-caste or inter-religious marriage within their

jurisdiction comes to their notice.

55.1.3. If information about any proposed gathering of a

khap panchayat comes to the knowledge of any police officer

or any officer of the District Administration, he shall

forthwith inform his immediate superior officer and also

simultaneously intimate the jurisdictional Deputy

Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police.

55.1.4. On receiving such information, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police (or such senior police officer as

identified by the State Governments with respect to the

area/district) shall immediately interact with the members of

the khap panchayat and impress upon them that convening

of such meeting/gathering is not permissible in law and to

eschew from going ahead with such a meeting. Additionally,

he should issue appropriate directions to the officer in

charge of the jurisdictional police station to be vigilant and,

if necessary, to deploy adequate police force for prevention of

assembly of the proposed gathering.

55.1.5. Despite taking such measures, if the meeting is

conducted, the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall

personally remain present during the meeting and impress

upon the assembly that no decision can be taken to cause

any harm to the couple or the family members of the couple,

failing which each one participating in the meeting besides

the organisers would be personally liable for criminal

prosecution. He shall also ensure that video recording of the

discussion and participation of the members of the assembly

is done on the basis of which the law-enforcing machinery

can resort to suitable action.

55.1.6. If the Deputy Superintendent of Police, after

interaction with the members of the khap panchayat, has

reason to believe that the gathering cannot be prevented

and/or is likely to cause harm to the couple or members of

their family, he shall forthwith submit a proposal to the

District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate of the

District/Competent Authority of the area concerned for

issuing orders to take preventive steps under CrPC,

including by invoking prohibitory orders under Section 144

41

CrPC and also by causing arrest of the participants in the

assembly under Section 151 CrPC.

55.1.7. The Home Department of the Government of India

must take initiative and work in coordination with the State

Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies

and by involving all the stake holders to identify the

measures for prevention of such violence and to implement

the constitutional goal of social justice and the rule of law.

55.1.8. There should be an institutional machinery with the

necessary coordination of all the stakeholders. The different

State Governments and the Centre ought to work on

sensitisation of the law enforcement agencies to mandate

social initiatives and awareness to curb such violence.‖

55.2. Remedial measures

55.2.1. Despite the preventive measures taken by the State

Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that the

khap panchayat has taken place and it has passed any

diktat to take action against a couple/family of an inter-

caste or inter-religious marriage (or any other marriage

which does not meet their acceptance), the jurisdictional

police official shall cause to immediately lodge an FIR under

the appropriate provisions of the Penal Code including

Sections 141, 143, 503 read with Section 506 IPC.

55.2.2. Upon registration of FIR, intimation shall be

simultaneously given to the Superintendent of Police/Deputy

Superintendent of Police who, in turn, shall ensure that

effective investigation of the crime is done and taken to its

logical end with promptitude.

55.2.3. Additionally, immediate steps should be taken to

provide security to the couple/family and, if necessary, to

remove them to a safe house within the same district or

elsewhere keeping in mind their safety and threat

perception. The State Governme nt may consider of

establishing a safe house at each District Headquarter for

that purpose. Such safe houses can cater to accommodate:

(i) young bachelor-bachelorette couples whose relationship is

being opposed by their families/local community/khaps, and

(ii) young married couples (of an inter-caste or inter-religious

or any other marriage being opposed by their families/local

community/khaps).

Such safe houses may be placed under the supervision of

the jurisdictional District Magistrate and Superintendent of

Police.

55.2.4. The District Magistrate/Superintendent of Police

must deal with the complaint regarding threat administered

to such couple/family with utmost sensitivity. It should be

42

first ascertained whether the bachelor -bachelorette are

capable adults. Thereafter, if necessary, they may be

provided logistical support for solemnising their marriage

and/or for being duly registered under police protection, if

they so desire. After the marriage, if the couple so desire,

they can be provided accommodation on payment of nominal

charges in the safe house initially for a period of one month

to be extended on monthly basis but not exceeding one year

in aggregate, depending on their threat assessment on case-

to-case basis.

55.2.5. The initial inquiry regarding the complaint received

from the couple (bachelor-bachelorette or a young married

couple) or upon receiving information from an independent

source that the relationship/marriage of such couple is

opposed by their family members/local community/khaps

shall be entrusted by the District Magistrate/Superintendent

of Police to an officer of the rank of Additional

Superintendent of Police. He shall conduct a preliminary

inquiry and ascertain the authenticity, nature and gravity of

threat perception. On being satisfied as to the authenticity of

such threats, he shall immediately submit a report to the

Superintendent of Police in not later than one week.

55.2.6. The District Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of

such report, shall direct the Deputy Superintendent of Police

in charge of the sub-division concerned to cause to register

an FIR against the persons threatening the couple(s) and, if

necessary, invoke Section 151 CrPC Additionally, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police shall personally supervise the

progress of investigation and ensure that the same is

completed and taken to its logical end with promptitude. In

the course of investigation, the persons concerned shall be

booked without any exception including the members who

have participated in the assembly. If the involvement of the

members of khap panchayat comes to the fore, they shall

also be charged for the offence of conspiracy or abetment, as

the case may be.

55.3. Punitive measures

55.3.1. Any failure by either the police or district

officer/officials to comply with the aforesaid directions shall

be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and/or

misconduct for which departmental action must be taken

under the service rules. The departmental action shall be

initiated and taken to its logical end , preferably not

exceeding six months, by the authority of the first instance.

43

55.3.2. In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam

Servai7, the States are directed to take disciplinary action

against the officials concerned if it is found that:

(i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having

prior knowledge of it, or

(ii) where the incident had already occurred, such official(s)

did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal

proceedings against the culprits.

55.3.3. The State Governments shall create Special Cells in

every district comprising of the Superintendent of Police, the

District Social Welfare Officer and District Adi-Dravidar

Welfare Officer to receive petitions/complaints of harassment

of and threat to couples of inter-caste marriage.

55.3.4. These Special Cells shall create a 24-hour helpline to

receive and register such complaints and to provide

necessary assistance/advice and protection to the couple.

55.3.5. The criminal cases pertaining to honour killing or

violence to the couple(s) shall be tried before the designated

court/fast track court earmarked for that purpose. The trial

must proceed on day-to-day basis to be concluded preferably

within six months from the date of taking cognizance of the

offence. We may hasten to add that this direction shall apply

even to pending cases. The District Judge concerned shall

assign those cases, as far as possible, to one jurisdictional

court so as to ensure expeditious disposal thereof.‖

15. We are conscious of the fact that the crimes committed

by groups of self-appointed keepers of public morality may be

on account of different reasons or causes, but the underlying

purpose of such group of persons is to exercise unlawful

power of authority and that too, without sanction of State and

create fear in the minds of the public or, in a given situation,

section of the community. The dispensation for preventing

occurrences of such crimes or remedial measures and punitive

44

measures would vest in the same police in the State.

Therefore, a comprehensive structure will have to be evolved in

the respective States so that the issues of accountability and

efficiency in curbing incidents of peaceful protests turning into

mob violence, causing damage to property including

investigation, remedial and punitive measures, are duly

addressed. While doing so, the directions given by this Court

in In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties

(supra), Shakti Vahini (supra) and Tehseen Poonawalla

(supra), must be borne in mind.

16. There are overlapping areas of directions which albeit

apply to the situations referred to in the concerned decision.

For the purpose of the present writ petition, we have no

hesitation in observing that the dispensation can be similar to

the one decided recently in Tehseen Poonawalla (supra), for

which reason the guidelines delineated in the said decision

must apply proprio vigore in respect of peaceful protests

turning into mob violence, causing damage to public and

private properties.

45

A. Ex abundanti cautela, we may hasten to clarify that

similar interim measures will operate in respect of any

peaceful protest turning into mob violence, causing loss of life

or damage to public and private properties, including violence

designed to instill fear in the minds and terrorise the common

man, in the absence of any law to that effect. The

recommendations / directions elucidated hereunder are not

exhaustive but only to set out broad contour of the measures

required to be taken and are in addition to the

recommendations/directions given in In Re: Destruction of

Public and Private Properties (supra):

A. Structural and preventive measures

a) In addition to the responsibilities ascribed to the Nodal

Officer(s) as set out in Tehseen Poonawalla (supra), the said

Nodal Officer(s) would also be responsible for creating and

maintaining a list containing the various cultural

establishments, including theatres, cinema halls, music

venues, performance halls and centres and art galleries within

the district, and pin point vulnerable cultural establishments

46

and property which have been attacked/damaged by mob

violence over the past 5 (five) years. This list would be updated

on a regular basis to account for any new openings/closings of

establishments.

b) In addition to the prohibition against weaponry laid down

in paragraph 12 (II) of In Re: Destruction of Public and

Private Properties (supra), any person found to be carrying

prohibited weaponry, licensed or otherwise, during

protests/demonstrations would prima facie be presumed to

have an intention to commit violence and be proceeded in that

regard as per law.

c) The State governments should set up Rapid Response

Teams preferably district-wise which are specially trained to

deal with and can be quickly mobilized to respond to acts of

mob violence. These teams can also be stationed around

vulnerable cultural establishments as mentioned hereinabove.

d) The State governments should set up special helplines to

deal with instances of mob violence.

47

e) The State police shall create and maintain a cyber -

information portal on its website and on its internet-based

application(s) for reporting instances of mob violence and

destruction of public and private properties.

B. Remedies to minimize, if not extirpate , the

impending mob violence

a) The Nodal Officer(s) will coordinate with local emergency

services, including police stations, fire brigades, hospital and

medical services and disaster management authorities during

incidents of mob violence in order to have a comprehensive

and consolidated response to the situation.

b) The authorities must consider the use of non-lethal

crowd-control devices, like water cannons and tear gas, which

cause minimum injury to people but at the same time, act as

an effective deterrent against mob force.

c) The authorities must ensure that arrests of miscreants

found on the spot are done in the right earnest.

d) The Nodal Officer(s), may consider taking appropriate

steps as per law including to impose reasonable restrictions on

48

the social media and internet-based communication services

or mobile applications, by invoking enabling provisions of law

during the relevant period of mob violence, if the situation so

warrants.

e) The Nodal Officer(s) must take coordinated efforts and

issue messages across various audio-visual mediums to

restore peace and to stop/control rumours. This can extend to

issuing communications on local TV channels, radio stations,

social media like Twitter etc.

C. Liability of person causing violence

a) If a call to violence results in damage to property, either

directly or indirectly, and has been made through a

spokesperson or through social media accounts of any

group/organization(s) or by any individual, appropriate action

should be taken against such person(s) including under

Sections 153A, 295A read with 298 and 425 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860.

b) In instances where a group/organisation has staged a

protest or demonstration resulting in violence and damage to

property, the leaders and office bearers of such

49

group/organisation should physically present themselves for

questioning, on their own, within 24 (twenty four) hours, in

the police station within whose jurisdiction the violence and

damage occurred. Any such person(s) failing to present

himself/herself in such manner without any sufficient reason

should be proceeded against as a suspect and legal process

must be initiated forthwith against him/her including for

being declared an absconder in accordance with law.

c) A person arrested for either committing or initiating,

promoting, instigating or in any way causing to occur any act

of violence which results in loss of life or damage to property

may be granted conditional bail upon depositing the quantified

loss caused due to such violence or furnishing security for

such quantified loss. In case of more than one person involved

in such act of violence, each one of them shall be jointly,

severally and vicariously liable to pay the quantified loss. If the

loss is yet to be quantified by the appropriate authority, the

judge hearing the bail application may quantify the amount of

tentative damages (which shall be subject to final

determination thereof by the appropriate authority) on the

50

principle stated in paragraph 15 of the decision in In Re:

Destruction of Public and Private Properties (supra), after

hearing the submissions of the State/agency prosecuting the

matter in that regard.

D. Responsibility of police officials

a) When any act of violence results in damage to property,

concerned police officials should file FIRs and complete

investigation as far as possible within the statutory period and

submit a report in that regard. Any failure to file FIRs and

conduct investigations within the statutory period without

sufficient cause should be considered as dereliction of duty on

behalf of the concerned officer and can be proceeded against

by way of departmental action in right earnest.

b) Since the Nodal Officer(s) holds the overall responsibility

in each district to prevent mob violence against cultural

establishments and against property, any unexplained and/or

unsubstantiated delay in filing FIRs and/or conducting

investigations in that regard should also be deemed to be

inaction on the part of the said Nodal Officer(s).

51

c) With reference to the videography mentioned in

paragraphs 5(iv), 10 and 12 of In Re: Destruction of Public

and Private Properties (supra), the officer-in-charge should

first call upon from the panel of local video operators

maintained by the concerned police station to video-record the

events. If the said video operators are unable to record the

events for whatever reason or if the officer-in-charge is of the

opinion that supplementary information is required, then

he/she can also call upon private video operators to record the

events and request the media for information on the incident

in question, if need be.

d) Status reports of the investigation(s)/trial(s) concerning

such offences as set out hereinabove, including the results of

such trial(s), shall be uploaded on the official website of the

concerned State police on a regular basis.

e) In the event of acquittal of any person(s) accused of

committing such offences as set out hereinabove, the Nodal

Officer(s) must coordinate with the Public Prosecutor for filing

appeal against such acquittal, in the right earnest.

52

E. Compensation

a) The person/persons who has/have initiated, promoted,

instigated or any way caused to occur any act of violence

against cultural programmes or which results in loss of life or

damage to public or private property either directly or

indirectly, shall be made liable to compensate the victims of

such violence.

b) Claims arising out of such acts of violence should be

dealt with in the manner prescribed in paragraph 15 of In Re:

Destruction of Public and Private Properties (supra).

c) This compensation should be with regard to the loss of

life or damage done to any public or private properties, both

movable and immovable.

17. The recommendations that we have made hereinabove be

implemented by the Central and State governments as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 8 (eight)

weeks from today.

18. While parting, we place on record our sincere

appreciation for the able assistance and constructive

53

suggestions given by the learned Attorney General for India,

the Additional Solicitor General, counsel for the petitioners

and other counsel appearing in this case.

19. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition in the

aforementioned terms.

.………………………….CJI.

(Dipak Misra)

…………………………..….J.

(A.M. Khanwilkar)

…………………………..….J.

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)

New Delhi;

October 01, 2018.