What is PDPP Act?

In the wake of widespread violence and damage to public property during recent agitations, particularly Patidar Andolan led by Hardik Patel, the Supreme Court of India has decided to frame guidelines to fix responsibility for loss of or damage to public properties and assets during agitations.

Earlier, the apex court itself in 2007 took a 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. Suo motu proceedings were initiated by a Bench of the Supreme Court in 2007. The court appointed two different committees, one headed by former supreme court judge, Justice K T Thomas and the other headed by Fali S Nariman.

The Justice Thomas Committee made the following recommendations: 1. The ‘Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984 must be amended to incorporate a rebuttable presumption that the accused is guilty of the offence after the prosecution proves that public property has been damaged in a direct action called by any organization; 2. The PDPP Act to contain provision to make the leaders of the organization, which calls the direct action, guilty of abetment of the offence; and 3. Enable the police officers to arrange videography of the activities damaging public property.

The other committee made recommendations for Police to enforce their duties and to the media. The Union Home Ministry has accepted the recommendations of the Justice K T Thomas committee and has proposed amendments to the PDPP Act to deter prospective violators from vandalizing and destroying public/private property during agitations and other forms of protests.

Among the proposed amendments was imposition of fine equivalent to the market value of the damaged property. Imprisonment of less than 6 months in select cases only and more stringent bail conditions were the other proposed amendments. The proposed amendments also seek to deter the office bearers of the organizations who call for this protests/agitation.

If public property is damaged in consequence of an agitation, bandh, demonstration etc called by an organisation, the office-bearers of that organisations can be prosecuted for abetment of the offence. If prosecution proves that the accused participated in an agitation which caused loss of public property, he will be presumed guilty, unless he can prove on the contrary. In this regard, the government elicited public views last year.