WHO’S TO BLAME? A bus being vandalised during a bandh
How many times have you cursed a bandh because it brings normal life to a complete halt? How many times have you been outraged by incidents of violence —buses being set on fire, railway tracks being damaged —all in the name of some political cause or grievance or another?
On April 16, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat took a stern view of the way agitations, bandhs and hartals often end up in large-scale destruction of public property. Observing that the destruction of public property has become “rampant,” the bench noted that the leaders who call for bandhs are rarely hauled up for the mayhem created by party workers.
The apex court went on to recommend that the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, be amended so that the leaders of the party which calls for the direct action can be held guilty of abetment of the offence and made to pay for damages.
According to Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution, “All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and expression, (b) to assemble peacefully and without arms. Article 51A of the Constitution states, however, that it is the fundamental duty of an Indian citizen “to protect public property and to avoid violence.” Clearly, very often the right to protest is used with impunity — without any regard to one’s duty to protect public property and avoid violence.
The Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act defines public property as “any property, whether immovable or movable... which is owned by, or in the possession of, or under the control of: the central government; or any state government; or any local authority; or any corporation established by, or under, central, provincial or state act; or any company as defined in Section 617 of the Companies, Act, 1956…”
The act stipulates that whoever causes damage to any public property is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to five years along with a fine.
Says Gitanath Ganguly, executive chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, “The law is not comprehensive. The act does not mention a situation where a political party causes damage to public property during bandhs. So a clear stand needs to be taken on this.”
Calcutta High Court advocate Protik Prokash Banerji feels that the Supreme Court’s recommendation is a step in the right direction. “Usually, the party leaders who call for bandhs remain in the background and only the grassroots level workers are vulnerable to prosecution for any damages that occur.”
Most political parties, however, are of the opinion that the apex court’s recommendation for an amendment to the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is quite unnecessary. Says CPI(M) state committee member Rajdeo Goala, “I feel that every individual or group or organisation has the right to protest using the tool of the bandh or hartal. But we are responsible enough to safeguard all property. So such amendments are not needed.”
Others say that if such an amendment does come into effect, it is likely to be misused by the opposition. “How will you prove that the leader who has called the bandh has instigated the damage to public property? An outfit opposing the bandh could well carry out the mischief to malign the leader or the party that has called the bandh,” says Prabash Ghosh, leader of the Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI).
Of course, an amendment to the act may take a long time in coming. Legal experts point out that the ball is really in the government’s court now. “The Supreme Court has given the recommendations. Now it is up to the government to take the next step. The court cannot force the government to implement the recommendations. Moreover, till the recommendations are mooted in Parliament and the amendment passed, no criminal liability can be attached to a party leader for instigating damage to public property,” explains advocate Banerji.
Though the apex court’s recommendation to fix responsibility for damage to public property is not particularly in the interest of political parties, some politicians are ready to swallow the bitter pill. Says Trinamool Youth Congress president Madan Mitra, “Any decision taken by the apex court is binding on all political parties, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with it.” Adds Congress MP Abdul Mannan, “The Supreme Court has suggested certain recommendations to the existing legislation. Whoever forms the next government will surely pay heed to these recommendations and make them into amendments if they agree with them.”
Others point out that merely bringing in amendments to existing laws will not solve the problem of lawlessness. Says Calcutta mayor and senior lawyer Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, “What is actually needed is political awareness in political parties and strict implementation of the existing laws. Besides, who is to decide how much damage has taken place? To do so a fact-finding agency would be required and it is well known that investigations can be influenced.”
Clearly, vested interests will raise a flurry of objections to the Supreme Court’s efforts to fix responsibility for the damage to public property during bandhs. The common man, though, will hope that the new government acts on the apex court’s recommendations so that those who aid and abet violence and destruction in the name of “protest” can be brought to book.