The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to bring in a law that fixes liability of those responsible for inciting and encouraging mob violence, expressing concern at the continued loss of lives and property in agitations despite guidelines being issued by it earlier.
A bench comprising Justices A K Goel and U U Lali has said that a mechanism must be set up that for adjudicating such cases and recommended that district courts be entrusted with the responsibility of prosecuting those guilty of indulging in mob violence and for fixing the compensation to be paid by them for the loss of property and lives.
The court also stated that law enforcement authorities must be held accountable for failing to take preventive steps during agitations. It also directed that the authorities record videos during the agitations to help nab those provoking people to violence.
Government To Amend Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act
According to K K Venugopal, the Centre was planning on amending the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act to include provisions in line with Supreme Court’s earlier guidelines. He added that the government was however yet to decision on how much compensation was to be fixed and the mechanism for deciding the amount.
Venugopal emphasised that the Centre was fully committed to amending the law and requested that the court allow the government to take a decision regarding the issue.
Acknowledging the statement by the AG, the court disposed of a petition filed by Koshy Jacob that sought for the SC to issue directives to the government regarding the implementation of the guidelines set by the SC.
The Bench stated it was hoping that “a law will be brought in force within a reasonable time” and that the court’s suggestions are considered and incorporated in the law.
SC Had Issued Wide-Ranging Directives
The SC had issued a range of directives which included a mechanism for individuals to claim damages via writ petitions filed against private parties who had called for the bandh during which the destruction of property occurred. It had also permitted high courts to take suo motu cognisance of such events and initiate proceedings against those responsible for the destruction or violence.
The SC guidelines also stated that a retired or sitting HC judge or district judge should be appointed as a claims commissioner who would investigate liability and fix the damages. The damages were not to be more than twice the total amount of the damage suffered.
The guidelines also suggested that the PDPP Act include provisions that hold leaders of organisations as being guilty of abetment for all related offences.
