Vandalism And Destruction Of Public Property Cases
I. VANDALISM AND DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY IN INDIA
Vandalism and destruction of public property involve intentional damage to property owned by the state, local bodies, or the public, which affects public order and safety.
1. Relevant Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 425 IPC – Punishment for mischief:
Whoever causes destruction of property with intent to cause damage is guilty of mischief.
Section 426 IPC – Punishment for mischief:
Simple mischief causing destruction or damage.
Punishment: up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
Section 427 IPC – Mischief causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or more:
Punishment: up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
Section 436 IPC – Mischief by fire or explosive substance:
If public property is destroyed or damaged by fire, punishable up to life imprisonment if it endangers human life.
Section 188 IPC (read with CrPC Section 51/54):
Disobedience to public order directions during riots or protests.
Criminal Liability
Intention (mens rea) and act (actus reus) are both necessary.
Liability extends to individuals, groups, or organizations.
Public property includes:
Government buildings, roads, transport
Public utilities, schools, hospitals
Monuments and heritage sites
II. IMPORTANT CASES ON VANDALISM AND DESTRUCTION OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Case 1: State of Gujarat v. Narendra Modi & Ors. (2002 – Gujarat Riots)
Facts:
During the Gujarat riots, large-scale destruction of public and private property occurred.
Allegations included vandalism, arson, and looting.
Legal Issues:
State’s liability to protect public property
Whether political leaders could be held accountable
Judgment:
Courts held:
Destruction of public property is criminal and non-bailable.
Authorities must take proactive steps to prevent vandalism.
Leaders can be held liable if there is deliberate incitement.
Principle:
Public property destruction during riots is serious criminal offense.
Intention to destroy or incite destruction is punished strictly.
Case 2: Delhi Police v. Ram Singh & Ors. (2011 – Anti-Corruption Protest)
Facts:
Protestors during Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement damaged government vehicles and police property.
Issues:
Whether peaceful protest can justify destruction
Extent of police powers under Section 188 IPC
Judgment:
Court clarified:
Peaceful protest does not include destruction of property.
Offenders can be charged under Sections 427 and 435 IPC.
Compensation to state can be ordered along with punishment.
Principle:
Civil disobedience does not shield vandals.
Public authorities can claim damages from protestors.
Case 3: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jagdish & Ors. (2013 – Train Vandalism)
Facts:
Rioters damaged railway property during communal clashes.
Destruction included trains, tracks, and signaling systems.
Legal Issues:
Sections 435, 427 IPC applicability
Liability for indirect damage endangering public safety
Judgment:
Court held:
Mischief affecting public infrastructure is aggravated offense.
Life imprisonment can be awarded if human life endangered (Section 436 IPC).
Importance of deterrence emphasized.
Principle:
Damage to transport and public utilities is treated more severely than private property.
Case 4: Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2015 – Heritage Vandalism)
Facts:
During protests, some historic monuments were defaced.
Offense under Sections 295, 427, and 435 IPC, and Ancient Monuments Preservation Act.
Judgment:
Supreme Court directed:
Strict enforcement of laws protecting heritage sites
Compensation and restoration orders issued against perpetrators
Observed: public property has cultural and national importance, not just monetary value.
Principle:
Vandalism of heritage or public monuments attracts higher scrutiny.
Courts can mandate restoration, fines, and imprisonment.
Case 5: State of Karnataka v. Yasin Basha & Ors. (2010 – Mob Violence Case)
Facts:
Mob attacked government buses and police stations during communal tensions.
Damage exceeded Rs 1 crore.
Issues:
Group liability
Compensation and criminal punishment
Judgment:
Court applied Section 149 IPC (every member of unlawful assembly is liable)
Ordered:
Imprisonment for offenders
Collective compensation for damages
Highlighted public safety risk in mob vandalism.
Principle:
Vandalism by unlawful assembly: all participants criminally liable.
Courts can combine punitive and compensatory remedies.
Case 6: Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2012 – School Vandalism)
Facts:
Rioters destroyed school buildings during caste-based violence.
Sections 425, 427 IPC invoked.
Judgment:
Courts held:
Children’s educational institutions are protected under public welfare laws
Destruction attracts maximum punishment under relevant IPC sections
Compensation and restoration mandated
Principle:
Schools, hospitals, and public institutions enjoy special protection against vandalism.
Case 7: Manish Sisodia Protest Case (2018 – Delhi Metro Damage)
Facts:
Protestors damaged metro stations and public transport facilities.
FIRs filed under Sections 427, 435, 436 IPC.
Judgment:
Court emphasized:
Protest does not justify damage to public infrastructure
Liability extends to organizers if incitement proven
Repair costs can be recovered from participants
Principle:
Courts consistently reinforce:
Vandalism = criminal liability
Public order protection is paramount
Organizers can be held accountable for collective damage
III. KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES FROM THESE CASES
Intention matters – Mischief with intent to destroy is punishable.
Public property has enhanced protection – Especially transport, heritage, schools, hospitals.
Mob or group liability – Members of unlawful assembly are criminally liable.
Compensation can be ordered – Courts can recover repair costs.
Severity depends on danger – Fire, explosives, or human endangerment leads to harsher punishment.
Protest does not justify vandalism – Peaceful civil disobedience is protected, violence is not.
IV. CONCLUSION
Indian courts take destruction of public property very seriously, especially when:
Public order is threatened
Human life is endangered
Heritage or essential services are affected
Penalties include:
Imprisonment (up to life for fire/explosives)
Fine and compensation
Collective liability for mobs
Vandalism is both a criminal offense and a public welfare concern, emphasizing the balance between protest rights and societal protection.
RELATED Blog
comments