dailyO
Politics

Dangers in amending Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

Advertisement
Gyanant Singh
Gyanant SinghJun 01, 2015 | 16:29

Dangers in amending Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

With protests increasingly becoming synonymous with destruction of public property, the government proposes to make changes in law to make it easier to fix criminal liability on leaders organising protests which turn violent. But the manner in which the government seeks to deal with the problem could jeopardise the right to protest.

In what arouses fears of misuse against political opponents or activists raising voice against unjust actions of the government, the Centre proposes to amend the Prevention of Damage to Public Properties Act, 1984 (PDPPA) to enable criminal prosecution of leaders on presumptions rather than on proof or evidence of their role in destruction of property.

Advertisement

The proposed amendment, which has been put in public domain for views of the people, needs to be debated as it proposes to make trial and conviction easier by incorporating some provisions to shift the "burden of proof" from the prosecution to the accused in certain circumstances.

The Centre, for instance, proposes to insert Section 4B which reads as under: "Where damage to public property is caused in consequence of demonstration, hartal or bandh called by any organisation, the office-bearers of such organisation, 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."

The punishment for abetment is the same as for the offence abetted (vide Section 4C). An office-bearer can escape "punishment" only if he/she proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

Given the public opinion against Gujjar-like protests causing inconvenience to the general public and holding governments to ransom, the Centre might not face much resistance in sailing through with the amendment. But if the provisions are cleared in the form as they exist, public-spirited persons may be deterred from raising voice on behalf of the society against any injustice for fear being singled out for action. Unlike in normal cases, where police have to first investigate and make out a case for trial, an office-bearer would not presumed to be innocent and would have to face the rigours of a trial to prove his innocence.

Advertisement

Though some amendments may be required in view of repeated disruptive protests, the entire blame could not be put on gaps in legal framework. Unruly protesters can be handled toughly by police which is empowered under Section 152 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to take action if there is likelihood of damage to public property.

Further, amnesty from prosecutions to script happy ending to protests is not uncommon. Shifting the onus of proof in such circumstances could cause more harm than good. While likelihood of amnesty would not deter groups having a say in vote bank politics, authorities could use the provision to selectively target activists leading lawful protests in case of miscreants joining the protest or sabotage.

Even on principles, there is no reason to absolve the police from gathering evidence for an offence which does not take place behind closed doors, as has been done for offences like dowry death. Besides, it cannot be ignored that the amendment also proposes video-recording of protests which arm police with evidence (Section 4D). Further, it would be unjust to base conviction on presumption and enhance the punishment as well.

Though the intention may be laudable, the amendment proposing that fine "shall" be equal to the market value of the property damaged might be impractical and unworkable. A better option would be to provide for fine which could extend up to the value of the property damaged.

Advertisement

The amendment rightly proposes to make the provision for bail more stringent. But such provisions can be justified only if there is positive evidence and not when there is a presumption of guilt. The government may have a tough job at hand, but it should take up the challenge to deter unruly protesters without affecting the right to protest which is essential for a vibrant, healthy, responsive democracy.

Last updated: June 01, 2015 | 16:29
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy