The J & K government has recently proposed a legislation, seeking monetary recovery for damages to public property, from protestors of the 2016 unrest.
This consequently saw the opposition protesting against the alleged dranconian clauses in the bill.
What brough up the legistlation?
J&K had witnessed violent, sustained street protests, in the Valley after the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani in 2016.
While several police stations and other public buildings were damaged, no official estimate of total damage has been presented yet.
However, according to National Crime Records Bureau data, only eight cases were registered under the 1985 law that year.
A new law for amending the “Jammu and Kashmir Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985”, was introduced in the Budget session.
It was subsequently referred to a Select Committee of the House due to opposition protests, who claimed that it had draconian provisions.
Notably, an ordinance to that effect is already in place.
What is the law about?
Original law - The J&K public property (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1985 - contains penal provisions against individuals who damage public property.
The maximum sentence is five years in prison, along with a fine, which can extend up to 10 years in case of damage by fire or explosive substances.
Bail is possible only after the prosecution gets a chance to oppose it in court.
Amendment - The new law seeks to recover the market value of public or private properties damaged during the protests from protestors.
It also states that all persons participating in protests would face imprisonment, even if they weren’t directly involved in damaging properties.
It also increases the minimum punishment from six months in jail to two years imprisonment and non recovery of damages could extent the term further.
Why - The amendment is aimed at deterring protesters from indulging in violence and damaging property.
Notably, the pelting of police stations with stones during the wave of protests were a strong provocation for bringing these clauses.
Prosecution - Situations where damage to property is anticipated, can be videographed and submitted as proof in the court.
For establishing a person as a protest organiser, additional proof is required.
Opposition - The separatists and the opposition parties in the J&K assembly protested against the legislation, as it could be misused.
They have stated that such laws have been opposed even in the parliament and other state assemblies as this could stifle even reasoned dissent.
Additionally, it has been stated that J&K already has a multitude of laws in the same domain like - AFSPA and Public Safety Act.
What are the other significant developments in this domain elsewhere?
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently ruled to recover damages from the “Dera”, whose followers were involved in vandalism.
In 2007, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of issues related to damage to properties during public protests.
Two committees were constituted to look into the matter - headed by retired SC judge K T Thomas, and the eminent jurist Fali S Nariman respectively.
Thomas Committee – It recommended an amendment to the parliamentary law “Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984”.
The recommendation was to hold leaders of the agitating group guilty of abetment – but the parliament hasn’t tabled such amendment yet.
Nariman Committee – It had asked the apex court to “evolve a principle of liability, punitive in nature, on account of vandalism and rioting.
The liability should lie with the actual perpetrators of the crime as well as organisers of the event giving rise to the liability.
