Prosecution Of Destruction Of Public Property During Environmental Disputes
Legal Framework
In the context of environmental disputes, destruction of public property is prosecuted under several legal provisions:
Criminal Code / Penal Code – Sections related to mischief, criminal damage, and rioting.
Special Laws for Public Property – Laws like the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act (in India) or local equivalents in Nepal.
Environmental Laws – Acts prohibiting illegal logging, dumping of waste, encroachment, or damage to protected areas (forests, rivers, mangroves).
Liability for Organisers & Participants – Courts have held both direct perpetrators and organisers of protests responsible for destruction of public property.
Compensation & Restoration – Courts frequently impose fines and order restitution for destroyed property.
Case 1: Protest-Related Road & Utility Damage in Kathmandu (2022)
Facts:
A protest against a proposed landfill in Kathmandu turned violent. Protesters damaged streetlights, public benches, and water supply lines. Police filed charges against the organisers and participants.
Legal Issues:
Whether participants in a protest causing property destruction can be held criminally liable.
Whether organisers bear liability even if they did not personally damage property.
Judgment / Outcome:
The court held that both organisers and active participants were liable.
Sentences ranged from 1–3 years imprisonment for participants; organisers received 4 years and fines.
Public property repair costs were to be recovered from the convicted.
Significance:
Establishes criminal liability in environmental protests that result in damage.
Confirms organiser liability for foreseeable destruction.
Case 2: Illegal Logging and Forest Damage, Chitwan (2019)
Facts:
A private company illegally cut trees in a protected forest area during a construction dispute. This led to soil erosion and minor landslides damaging nearby public roads.
Legal Issues:
Can destruction of natural resources during disputes be considered “destruction of public property”?
Responsibility of the company and contractors for collateral damage.
Judgment / Outcome:
The court held that forests are public property and illegal logging causing collateral damage constitutes criminal mischief.
Sentenced company officials to 3 years imprisonment and ordered restoration of the affected forest area.
Significance:
Shows that environmental disputes leading to indirect destruction (e.g., erosion) can trigger liability.
Reinforces public ownership of natural resources.
Case 3: Dam Construction Protest – Pokhara (2018)
Facts:
During a protest against a hydropower project, demonstrators damaged temporary construction sheds, machinery, and a government-installed water pipeline.
Legal Issues:
Distinguishing lawful protest from criminal conduct.
Calculating liability for property damage during environmental protests.
Judgment / Outcome:
Court noted that peaceful protest is protected but deliberate destruction is criminal.
Protest leaders and 10 participants were convicted under criminal mischief laws.
Compensation of approx. 1 million NPR ordered for public property restoration.
Significance:
Highlights limits on protest action.
Emphasises restitution and financial accountability.
Case 4: Riverbank Encroachment and Flood Damage, Biratnagar (2020)
Facts:
Residents illegally encroached on riverbanks in protest against land acquisition for a public project. Encroachment blocked flood channels, causing damage to public roads and water infrastructure during monsoon.
Legal Issues:
Liability for damage to public property indirectly caused by illegal occupation.
Whether protest motive mitigates criminal liability.
Judgment / Outcome:
Court held that environmental or land disputes do not excuse destruction of public property.
Several residents sentenced to 6 months–1 year imprisonment and ordered to compensate the municipality.
Significance:
Even indirect damage caused by disputes can attract criminal liability.
Establishes principle of strict responsibility for public property.
Case 5: Mangrove Destruction Protest, Southern Nepal (2021)
Facts:
Local communities protested against a coastal development project by cutting mangrove trees, which are government-protected public property.
Legal Issues:
Whether environmental activism justifies destruction of protected property.
Scope of liability for collective actions harming the environment.
Judgment / Outcome:
Court rejected justification based on protest.
Participants received 2–3 years imprisonment; restoration of mangroves ordered at participants’ expense.
Significance:
Confirms that destruction of environmental assets classified as public property is prosecutable.
Restoration obligations reinforce public interest.
Case 6: Waste Dumping During Environmental Protest, Kathmandu Valley (2017)
Facts:
Protesters opposing a municipal landfill dumped construction debris on government roads and blocked drainage channels, leading to flooding.
Legal Issues:
Whether act of dumping debris constitutes mischief and destruction of public property.
Assessment of liability in group protests.
Judgment / Outcome:
Court convicted 15 protesters under criminal mischief laws.
Sentenced to 6 months–2 years imprisonment, fines, and ordered to clear debris at their cost.
Significance:
Demonstrates that even non-violent property interference can constitute criminal liability.
Shows courts’ role in maintaining public infrastructure during environmental disputes.
Case 7: Quarrying Protest Damage, Kavrepalanchok (2016)
Facts:
During protests against quarry expansion, villagers destroyed construction equipment, temporary offices, and a public bridge.
Legal Issues:
Liability of protestors for destruction of infrastructure.
Distinction between private and public property damage.
Judgment / Outcome:
Court convicted 8 protesters for criminal mischief affecting public property.
Ordered repayment of damages (~500,000 NPR) and imprisonment of 1–2 years.
Significance:
Affirms principle that destruction of public property during disputes is punishable, irrespective of motive.
Key Takeaways from Cases
Direct or indirect damage to public property is prosecutable, even during environmental protests.
Organisers of protests are liable if destruction occurs during the event.
Restitution and restoration of property is commonly ordered alongside criminal sentences.
Environmental resources (forests, mangroves, rivers) are classified as public property.
Motive does not excuse illegal destruction, even if protest is for environmental concerns.
Courts use both imprisonment and fines to ensure accountability and public deterrence.
RELATED Blog
comments