With protests intensifying in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Cauvery river water-sharing dispute, both states have seen giant destruction of public and private property.
Scores of cars, together with country shipping buses, were torched in Bengaluru because the city erupted in violence over sharing Cauvery waters with neighbouring Tamil Nadu. A mob hurled stones and vandalized shops and establishments at a bus station for Tamil Nadu-certain buses, at the same time as a fleet of greater than 30 buses belonging to a personal operator become reportedly set on fire.
In Chennai, a set of unidentified men reportedly hurled a petrol bomb at New Woodlands Motel, an Udupi eating place.
Destruction of public assets is common for the duration of agitations led by means of prepared mobs.
Mint said that the Jat agitation in February has dealt an anticipated blow of Rs.18,000-20,000 crore through way of loss to public and private assets and halting alternate, industry, small enterprise and delivery, according to the Related Chambers of Commerce and industry (Assocham).
How can we restore duty for damage of belongings during agitations?
Following the Patel agitation in Gujarat last yr, the Perfect Courtroom has decided to put down a law for fixing accountability for the harm caused to public assets for the duration of agitations.
“You cannot burn the usa’s or its citizen’s belongings. Agitators can’t take the u . S . at ransom,” the Courtroom had stated even as hearing a bail plea through Hardik Patel, a political activist from Gujarat who campaigned for the inclusion of the Patidar caste inside the different backward elegance (OBC) category.
Patel has been charged with sedition for inciting violence in the country that caused lack of lifestyles and belongings.
In 2009, taking a extreme note of numerous times, where there was big-scale destruction of public and private properties at some stage in agitations, bandhs and hartals, the apex Courtroom initiated suo moto complaints to lay down the regulation making those responsible answerable for their acts.
The Courtroom formulated two committees—one headed by using former apex Court decide Ok.T. Thomas and every other by means of endorse Fali S. Nariman—which protected representatives of the home ministry and the law ministry.
Also Examine: Cauvery dispute: SC order sparks violence across Karnataka
One of the recommendations made through the committees became to amend the Prevention of damage to Public assets Act, 1984, o
r the PDPP Act, to encompass provisions to make the leaders of the organization that requires the direct action responsible of abetment of the offence.
“As long as there is no clean identifiable leader calling for violence and incitement, it is going to be tough to pin obligation as mob mentality ensues. Until someone is determined manifestly violating police orders, then the chief of the organization could be liable,” stated Alok Prasanna Kumar, senior resident fellow on the Vidhi Centre for Criminal Coverage.
The issue of figuring out the leaders has been a remember of dialogue.
advise Kapil Sibal, who regarded for Hardik Patel inside the apex Courtroom, said that although Patel turned into the face of the agitation and called for movement, he can’t be held accountable. He had informed the Court that the protest quickly spiralled out of Patel’s manage and character protesters took to the streets themselves destroying assets.
A three-judge bench of the apex Court laid down hints in 2009 primarily based on the committee’s guidelines which the Court is presently revisiting within the case of sedition made against Patel.
The ministry of home affairs had proposed to amend the PDPP Act in 2015 to discourage protestors from violating public belongings, however the inspiration is still inside the pipeline.
“It’s miles the government that has to expose strong will and employ generation to save you loss to public and personal belongings,” stated Sandeep Shastri, a political analyst and pro-vice-chancellor of Jain University in Bengaluru.
“In a mob, people are emboldened as they suppose their identification is blanketed and that they aren’t individually responsible. If police pull out video recordings and make vandalizers pay, it will certainly send out a robust message,” he stated.