Property-damage prevention guidelines upheld to address legal vacuum and provide compensation until legislation is enacted.

In the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework, the Supreme Court approved binding guidelines to prevent destruction of public and private property during agitations, bandhs, hartals, riots and similar disturbances. The guidelines cover preventive police measures, videography, adjudication of claims by a judicial officer, assessment of liability on absolute liability principles, shared responsibility of perpetrators and organisers, and exemplary damages. They are to operate until replaced by legislation or a statutory fast-track mechanism. The Court also declined to issue immediate positive directions on the media-related recommendations, leaving their implementation to the appropriate authorities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in the absence of suitable legislation, binding guidelines could be framed for prevention of destruction of public and private property, investigation of such incidents, and assessment of compensation. (ii) Whether immediate positive directions were warranted on the media-related recommendations placed before the Court.

Issue (i): Whether, in the absence of suitable legislation, binding guidelines could be framed for prevention of destruction of public and private property, investigation of such incidents, and assessment of compensation.

Analysis: The material before the Court disclosed a repeated pattern of large-scale destruction of property during agitations, bandhs, hartals, riots, and similar public disturbances. In that setting, and in the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework, the Court accepted the recommendations designed to fill the legal vacuum and to make preventive and compensatory mechanisms effective. The accepted guidelines included police-side preventive measures, videography, claims adjudication by a judicial officer, assessment of liability on principles of absolute liability, shared responsibility of actual perpetrators and organisers, and award of exemplary damages. The Court also held that such guidelines would operate until appropriate legislation or a statutory fast-track mechanism was enacted.

Conclusion: The Court upheld and issued the preventive and compensatory guidelines, to operate until superseded by legislation.

Issue (ii): Whether immediate positive directions were warranted on the media-related recommendations placed before the Court.

Analysis: The media-related suggestions were noted as important, but the Court declined to issue immediate positive directions at that stage and preferred to leave implementation to the appropriate authorities. The Court treated those suggestions as matters for further action rather than as directions requiring present enforcement.

Conclusion: No immediate positive directions were issued on the media-related recommendations.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended with approval of the principal guidelines for prevention and compensation in cases of damage to property, while refraining from immediate coercive directions on the media proposals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory vacuum exists and urgent public injury requires an effective remedy, the Court may frame operational guidelines under its constitutional powers to secure prevention, investigation, liability, and compensation until the legislature acts.

---