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 25th  

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 the 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. Thomas 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 recommendations 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 such  

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 special  

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 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.   

(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 awarded. 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. Barnard 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 17th 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 anyone  

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 persons  

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 group 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 shall  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 prescribed 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 would  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 6th May, 20132. 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  

6th 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 record 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 26th March, 20183 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 26th 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 17th 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 offence 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 display 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 expression 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 cohesiveness 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, the 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 cause

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 Governments 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 Panahcayats. 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 Panchayats.  

Paragraph 55 reads thus:  

―55. Mr Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel 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 Government 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.