Widespread violent protest and loss of public properties across several States against the Centre's new "Agnipath" military recruitment scheme go against the very core of legal principles and a slew of directions passed by the Supreme Court in its various judgements to curb such incidents.

In the past, the apex court dealt sternly with those indulging in such incidents by deprecating the "disconcerting rise" in violent protests and demonstrations by private entities and also has observed that "Nobody has the right to become a self-appointed guardian of the law and forcibly administer his or her interpretation of the law on others, especially not with violent means."

Some of the important directions like indicting leaders of the organisations indulging in violent protests leading to damage of properties, asking high courts to suo motu take cognizance of such incidents, and awarding compensation to the victims have been witnessed in the last few years after the apex court pro actively deliberated on the issue.

In recent years, whenever there are widespread incidents of violence targeting government policies, the exhibition of movies, social functions, and sections of people on moral grounds, the apex court has asked the authorities to fix the accountability on those who damage the public and private properties.

Despite a special law, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, 1984, being in force but lacking in its teeth, the top court took suo motu note of incidents of wide-scale violence and loss of public properties in 2007 and constituted two committees to give its recommendations.

On April 16, 2009, the apex court took note of the recommendations of two committees led by Justice K T Thomas, a retired apex court judge, and noted jurist FS Nariman and said that the suggestions are extremely important and they constitute sufficient guidelines that need to be adopted.

The report of Justice (retd) KT Thomas Committee had recommended that the PDPP Act, 1984 must be amended to incorporate a rebuttable presumption (after the prosecution established the two facets) that the accused is guilty of the offence.

It had said that the PDPP Act should contain a provision to make the leaders of the organization, which calls the direct action, guilty of abetment of the offence and enable the police officers to arrange videography of the activities damaging public property.

The Nariman committee also made several recommendations including that 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 .

The top court had accepted the recommendations of the Nariman committee which said Wherever a mass destruction to the property takes place due to protests or thereof, the High Court may issue suo motu action and set up the machinery to investigate the damage caused and to award compensation related thereto .

It had said where there is more than one state involved; such action may be taken by the Supreme Court.

In 2018, the top court while deprecating the "disconcerting rise" in violent protests and demonstrations by private entities targeting public properties, the exhibition of movies, social functions, and sections of people on moral grounds relied on its 2009 verdict.

The 2018 verdict had come on a plea filed by the Kodungallur Film Society which had highlighted the serious law and order problem that had arisen before the release of the controversial movie 'Padmaavat'.

It said that nobody has the right to become a "self-appointed guardian" of law as mob violence runs against the very core of legal principles signalling chaos and lawlessness.

While making it clear that states have a duty to protect the citizens, the apex court had said that the court was conscious that crimes committed by groups of "self-appointed keepers of public morality" might be on account of different reasons, but the purpose was to exercise unlawful power of authority and create fear in the minds of the public.

It had said, "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".

The top court had added: "This court has time 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.

Recently on February 18, the top court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to refund the fine and restore the attached properties of the alleged anti-CAA protestors for causing damage to public and private assets in December 2019 while terming it as a case of unjust enrichment .

The top court said that the due procedure laid down by the apex court in its 2009 and 2018 verdicts was not followed by the state government on the assessment of damages and asked it to initiate proceedings under the new 2020 law-- Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act notified on August 31, 2020.