VANDALISM OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AS DELICTA JURIS

GENTIUM: NEED FOR A STRICT PROVISIONS

Abstract
Vandalism is certainly a very burning issue under every Criminal Justice System yet as far as the
attitude of ours is concerned, “being ignorant is bliss” ignored, particularly in India. Vandalism
can be penalized as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on the state, monetary value
of the damage, age of the defendant, and other factors, such as gang sodality. In India, the
nation holds laws regarding Vandalism. But infelicitously the law needs to be more stringent.
The Apex Court expressly mentioned in its decisions that there is a desideratum of strict
legislation in lieu of Vandalism against Public Property. The guidelines issued in certain cases
proved to be impactful in the latter cases. The present work analyses the penal provisions
regarding Vandalism read with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, the
failures of the provisions are additionally analyzed and the desideratum for the strict and
rigorous provisions for vandalism of Public Property is stressed upon.
I. Introduction
II. Meaning of term Vandalism
III. Vandalism of Public Property in India
IV. Why do people vandalize public property?

V. Legislation against Vandalism of Public Property

VI. Toothless Legislations against Vandalism of Public Property

VII. Provisions regarding Vandalism in different countries

VIII. Need for a Change

IX. Conclusion

I. Introduction

IN INDIA, Vandalism of public and private properties is very common phenomenon. The
controversial farmer’s bill protest had been a news since last 2020. However, the thing to be
brought is more than 1,500 telecom towers in Punjab have been damaged by farmers
protesting against the three farm laws, disrupting services in some pockets. 1 Moreover, during
the Anti-CAA protest, the Shaheen bagh protest has issued a long bill of cost of damages to the

1
Nilavo Ghosh, “Farmers’ protest: Protestors damage over 1,500 telecom towers in Punjab”, Hindustan Times,
Dec. 28, 2020 <https://www.hindustantimes.com/chandigarh/over-1-500-telecom-towers-damaged-in-
punjab/story-BkbcSi20e36ldMJKwXCTXN.html> (last visited on Jan. 20, 2021).
public properties of the Nation. This is not a single case where the people prefer to show the
agony against the government by damaging the public and private property. This had become a
custom in almost every nation in the globe. Vandalism is certainly a very burning issue under
every Criminal Justice System. It does not matter whether a person disagreesdisagree with the
government or the law, the thing which hashave to suffer is the property, especially that of
public property. Vandalism can be penalized as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending
on the state, monetary value of the damage, age of the defendant, and other factors, such as
gang sodality. Moreover, the high rate of vandalism in Europe and the United States has
produced such negative effects as immense financial losses, destruction of priceless art works,
reduced public services, and growth of general mistrust. 2
For these reasons, the article proposed that vandalism should become a priority subject for
research.3 This Article focuses on the legal perspective of Vandalism in India, the prevention of
vandalism by means of law. Further, this Article also suggests the change in the approach of
legislation and judiciary regarding the offence of Vandalism. Nevertheless, vandalism today
should not be seen as an isolated phenomenon; it should be viewed within the general social
context, by reference to today's values and the current attitudes of youth and adults alike.
People don’t feel that they should be concerned about the other subject as well. Hence, the
makers feel that there should be some provisions or statute regarding this. In its various forms
vandalism also threatens some of our society's most cherished non-pecuniary values, including
those of racial and religious tolerance, the nonviolent and rational settlement of conflict, and
the conviction that property, quite aside from its real worth, should not be wantonly abused or
destroyed.

II. Meaning of term ‘Vandalism’

According to Cambridge Dictionary, the term ‘vandalism’ means
“the crime of intentionally damaging property belonging to other people”4. In this definition,
the dictionary hashave expressly mentioned that ‘Vandalism is a crime.’ It defines that theas
the property must not belong to oneself. Moreover, Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it as,
‘willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property.’ 5 Here, the
intentional destruction or defacement of property is focused upon. The property may be either

2
U Fuellgrabe “Psychological Analysis of Vandalism” 2 Schriftenreihe der Polizei-Fuehrungsakademie 156
(1980).
3
D. H. MacNeil “Is vandalism actually on the increase?” 18 Federal Probation 16 (1954).
4
Cambridge Dictionary, available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vandalize (last visited on
Dec. 20, 2021).
5
Merriam-Webster dictionary, available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vandalism (last visited
on Dec. 21, 2021).
public or private. However, the Collin’s dictionary specifically includes the destruction of public
property only and hence regarded as a narrow definition. According to Collin’s Dictionary, the
term ‘vandalism’ means ‘the deliberate damaging of things, especially public property.’6 The
noun ‘vandalism’ traced back in 1700s and was reputedly coined in 1794 by an apologist for the
French Revolution who, ‘attempting to cast blame for the destruction of works of art during the
Revolution upon its enemies, likened such destruction to the behavior of the Vandals, an East
Germanic tribe, who sacked Rome in the Fifth Century.’ 7 Although the word ‘vandalism’ is still
used occasionally to describe the “willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures,
or such behaviors as littering and out-of-season hunting.” 8 Hence, it has much more broader
scope covering even the destruction of artistry work or literature. It is most often used now
days to describe the destruction of property in general. In fact a recent effort to define more
precisely the content of such behavior suggested that vandalism meant "the deliberate
defacement, mutilation or destruction of private or public property by a juvenile or group of
juveniles not having immediate or direct ownership in the property so abused."9 Though this
definition would cover even the juvenile delinquency. Hence the essentials of Vandalism could
be extracted as:
1) Presence of Mens Rea or negligent behavior
2) There must be a property, either public or private
3) There must be some damage to the property by the person.
4) The property must belong to anotherother person or State itself.
Kinds of Vandalism

Vandalism can be of various kinds. Some vandalism may qualify as “culture jamming or
sniggling: it is thought by some to be artistic in nature even though carried out illegally or
without the property owner's permission.”10 If one is destroying or damaging any property, it
will be vandalism. It could be the act of damaging a statute, writing on a monument or building,
burning vehiclesburning a vehicles, egg-throwing, stealing the headphones and monitors from a
train, stealing the street lights, defacing the property, damaging the websites, etc. Some of its
kind could be the Art Vandalism, VindicativeVindicative Vandalism, Cyber/Computer

6
Collins Dictionary, available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vandalism (last visited on
Dec. 21, 2021).

7
S. J. Idzera, “Iconoclasham during French Revolution” 60 American Historical Review 13-23 (1954).
8
E. C. Waggener, “Remedies for vandalism” 26 Nation's Schools 58 (1940).
9
M. B. Clinard and A. L. Wade, “Toward the delineation of vandalism as a subtype in juvenile delinquency” 48
The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, (1958).
10
D. Ley and R. Cybriwsky, “Urban Graffiti as Territorial Markers” 64 Annals of Association of American
Geographers 98 (1974).
Vandalism or Political Vandalism and more.
Art vandalism may be seen as “an intermediate form between an attack on a thing and an
attack on a person in so far as it entails an attack on a particular image for example, of the
Madonna and Child-or on an idea or concept depicted by an image.” 11 Recently, in August 2020,
a minor was apprehended for vandalizing the statue of Ambedkar in Shivpuri. Similarly, on the
occasion of the 150thof 150th birthday of Father of the Nation, vandals assailed a memorial to
Mohandas K. Gandhi, painted ‘traitor’ in lurid green across his picture, and may have purloined
some of his ashes. Freedberg writes of those attacks which are an expression of the assailant's
need to break the hold exerted by the artworkart work over him or her, and may result from a
confusion of image and reality at the material time of the attack. 12 One kind of Art Vandalism,
street art found its inceptions in political vandalism and slogans painted in the public domain to
express dissent through the window of art and aesthetics. This kineticism has now become a
contemporary crusade that is present ecumenical.

Vindicative vandalism, another kind of Vandalism, was originally used by Cohen in 1973 to
refer to “the use of property destruction as a form of revenge, observing that those who commit
such acts often consider that they have been unjustly treated and their actions can be seen, as a
form of spite, in order to get one’s own back or to settle a long term grudge.”13 In some
vandalism the chief motivation appears to be the desire of the participants to express the
antagonism and execration they feel toward special individuals and groups and sometimes such
animosity seems to be amalgamated with an effort to daunt particular victims.

On the Other hand, Cyber/Computer vandalism accounts to the act of damaging someone’s data
from the computer that in a way disrupts the victim’s business or image due to editing the data
into something invasive, embarrassing or absurd.14 The very famous instance transpired in 2016
to the very famous website ‘Wikipedia’ and hence, becoming a very famous example of
Cyber/Computer Vandalism. In the midst of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, the crowd
sourced website Wikipedia experienced digital vandalism. Since anyone can edit a Wikipedia
page, it sanctioned editors to first expunge Republican candidate Donald Trump's entire page.

Further, Political Vandalism is quite common during election. It includes the defacing the
posters of the opposition, destroying the properties and more. It is often done by the supporters
of a particular political party. Justice (retd.) PB Sawant on the revocation of President’s Rule in
11
Christopher Cordess and Maja Turcan “Art Vandalism” 33 British Journal of Criminology 24 (1993).
12
Ibid at 29
13
Long Matt and Burke Roger, “Vandalism and Anti Social Behaviour” Palgrave Macmillian 36 (2015).
14
Lena Maria, “Cyber Vandalism, An artwork of Cyber Threat to people”, War on Identity Theft, Aug 3, 2020,
available at: <http://www.waronidtheft.org/cyber-vandalism-an-artwork-of-cyber-threat/#:~:text=Cyber
%2DVandalism%20accounts%20to%20the,something%20invasive%2C%20embarrassing%20or%20absurd.> (last
visited on Dec. 28, 2020).
Maharashtra in 2019 asserted that "The entire episode that took place at the night of November
22 and morning of November 23 is political vandalism and social vulgarism."15

III. Vandalism of Public Property in India

Even afore the coining of a particular term for damaging the property intentionally, it was a
trendy approach to ravage the property to show one’s digress against the government. The
traces of ravagement could be found in 1671 when the denizens eradicated the temples and
mosques to protest against the Aurangzeb’s Religious Policies. It is notifying that this trend of
damaging the properties was prevalent in the British Colonial Rule and was very frequent from
1920 to 1946. It included the astronomically immense ravagement of temples, mosques, roads,
homes, conveyances and many. In the riot of Direct Action Day, in August 1946, in Calcutta,
virtually One lakh people became homeless after that. It was then in 1967 in Ranchi-Hatia riots
where virtually 200 shops were looted and burnt along with three places of worshipwork ship
were damaged by arson. Further, one cannot forget the 1969 Gujarat riots which was a
communal violence between Hindus and that involved massacre, arson and looting on a sizably
voluminous scale. It was reported that property worth Rupees 42 million was ravaged. In 1992,
Ayodhaya conflict/Babri Masjid controversy adscititiously lightened up the incidences of
Vandalism of Public Properties. Kandhamal Riots left more than 500 churches demolished,
burnt down or vandalized leaving 60,000 people homeless in 2007 to 2009. Bihar riots in 2018
reported four Hindu temples vandalized including the Hanuman idols and murtis inside of them
broken and one mosque supplementally vandalised, conveyances, shops were burnt. The cases
are just a piece of grass in a grazing land. There are several incidents which were unreported
even before 1600 or in between these periods.
IV. Why do people vandalize public property?
The reasons for the vandalism of public and properties are countless. Vandalism, like other
type of pathological behavior, represents an outlet for aggression and feelings that have not
been solved in a healthy or acceptable manner. 16 The incidents of damage and defacement of
public property is often auricularly discerned in the News channels or newspapers during
protests, riots, strikes and hartals. Perhaps, people find the public property as the simplest and
efficacious way to show their exasperation towards the system. The very famous incidents
could be taken as the example of it. Whether it is Farmer’s Bill protest or Anti- CAA protest, the
people majorly opt for damaging the public properties. Another reason could be people find it
15
Pankaj P. Khelkar, “Political vandalism, social vulgarism: Justice PB Sawant hits out at Maharashtra governor
over political drama”, India TV News Nov. 26 2020, available at: <https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/political-
vandalism-social-vulgarism-justice-pb-sawant-hits-out-at-maharashtra-governor-political-drama-1622310-2019-11-
25> (last visted on Aug. 15, 2020).
16
Hyman S. Lippman, “Vandalism as an Outlet for Aggression”, 18 Federal Probation 5 (1954).
very facile to damage or deface the public property. The denizens feel that they don’t have the
responsibility to take care of public properties or the government is not well concerned about
them or vandalizing the public property as well as private property is the only way to awake the
government against any injustice. Additionally, it is additionally not mendacious that private
properties are additionally hampered during protests. Vandalism could be withal the result of
revenge. “We are becoming increasingly polarized as a country. Sometimes, the vandalism is a
result of this sentiment. A person who is against Tipu Sultan may vandalize monuments which
figure in his story. It can also be due to religious animosity”, says an article.17 Further, we can
also assume it as a reason that juveniles as well as youths are not concerned about other’s
properties. Several years ago an article published in Federal Probation as part of a ‘Symposium
on Vandalism’ noted that, “although it was possible to build up a substantial library about such
subjects as arson, assault, burglary, kleptomania, runaways, sex misconduct, and truancy, the
voluminous professional literature on juvenile delinquency was virtually silent on vandalism.” 18
Hence, one cannot simply say that only some section of people is responsible for this. People,
regardless of caste, creed, sex, age vandalize the property, either intentionally or
unintentionally. Elaborating, one is not even aware that they are actually vandalizing the public
property. It would amount to Vandalism if one throws a piece of paper in the train, or if one
writes something on the national heritage. ‘In general, vandalism may be motivated by
malicious greed, by the wish to draw attention to a particular condition, by a political ideology,
by the desire for revenge on a particular person, by frustration, or by misguided playfulness.’ 19  

V. Legislation against Vandalism of Public Property

Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code deals with the provisions regarding the Offences against
the Property. It was the first penal provision regarding the wrongful act against property.
Considering the literal meaning of ‘mischief’ is ‘behavior, especially a child’s, that is slightly bad
but not intended to cause serious harm or damage’, according to Cambridge Dictionary.
Although it means the behavior of child, but almost all the nation-states across the globe have
implemented the penalization of this.
Section 425, Indian Penal Code 1860
The Criminal Mischief has been defined and illustrated in the Section 425, of the Indian Penal
Code. Criminal Mischief (or Malicious Mischief) refers to the intentional damage or loss to the

17
Geetika Mantri, “‘Raju was here’: Why in the World do Indian vandalise heritage monuments?”The News
Minute, Aug 16, 2020, available at: <https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/raju-was-here-why-world-do-
indians- vandalise-heritage-monuments-96202> (last visited on Nov. 29, 2021).
18
John M. Martin. Juvenile Vandalism: A Study of Its Nature and Prevention (1961).
19
Supra 2.
property of a person by another subject. Here in this offence, like any other, mens rea is one of
the paramount ingredients for committing the offence. Thus, for the offence of mischief it is
sufficient that the offender knows that by his act he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage
to the public or to any person.20 Besides dealing with Mischief in general terms, the code
contemplates 14 cases, commencing from Section 427 to Section 440, in which gravity of
offence is aggravated owing to the greater value of wrongful loss or damage of the property
than in the ordinary case of Mischief. 21 The section is based on the legal maxim, sic utre tuo ut
allenum non leadas, meaning, ‘use your own property so as not to injure another’s property’.
The express mention of this word 'Damage' which is not limited in its scope by a definition, is
not superfluous and/or redundant, and is indicative of the fact that the purview of the offence
of 'Mischief' is not intended to be confined only to cases of 'Wrongful loss', but also to engulf
within it all such cases of damages by unlawful means as in this case.22
Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.
In India, several laws and statutes were framed apart from Indian Penal Code and brought in
existence. One such important provision is Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984.
Section 3(1) of the said Act imposes the penalty for the person who damages the public
property up to 5 year and with fine. Further, Section 3(2) imposes penalty of not less than six
months and could be elongated to 5 years with fine, on a person who commits a mischief in
reverence of public property. The Act mainly deals with the damages and ravagement of the
public property. Virtually, this law is applicable in the astronomically immense riot cases. The
cases may include the very famous Godhra Incident 23 which resulted into the death of 59
people along with the grievous injury to 48 persons or the very famous incident of Ram Rahim 24
in the Sirsa district. On the other hand, the objects & reasons of the said Act is prevention of
damage to public property and curbing the acts of vandalism to the public property including
destruction and damage caused during riots and public commotion and to deal effectively with
the cases of damage to public property by punishing such offenders to the public property. 25
State Legislations
Several states in the nation have its own legislation against the defacement of Public
Properties. These states include Bihar, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi etc. Moreover, the
action of property attachment is being done under the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to
20
Satish Chand Singhal v State of Rajasthan, 2007 Cr LJ 4132 (Raj).
21
K.D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 983 (Universal Lexis Nexis, 16th edn., 2016).
22
Arjuno Goudo And Ors. vs State And Another, AIR 1969 Ori 200.
23
Moulvi Hussain Ibrahim Umar Ji v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 3 SCC 444.
24
Lakhwinder Singh v. State of Harayana AIR 2010 SC 1557.
25
Vikash Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar and Others, AIR 2011 Pat 72.
Public and Private property ordinance-2020 in compliance with the orders issued by additional
district magistrate (Trans-Gomti) Vishwa Bhushan Mishra. 26 After the protests, the district
administration of Lucknow had assessed the losses and had sent recovery notices worth about
Rs 1.55 Crore to over 50 people seeking the payment of damages allegedly done by them
during the protests.27 Another illustration may include Jamia Millia Islamia incident. The then
CJI asserted that the protesters were free to take to the streets, but if they did, they would not
be heard by the court.28

Supreme Court Guidelines

In 2007, the Supreme Court of India took the suo moto cognizance on the continuous increase
in the cases of Vandalism on the Public Property. Thereafter two Committees were setup which
was headed by the former judge Justice K.T. Thomas and Senior Advocate (Now Honorable
Justice) R.F. Nariman. Justice K.T. Thomas Committee29 propounded the following amendments-
(i) The PDPP Act must be so amended as to incorporate a rebuttable postulation after the
prosecution established the two facets that the accused is censurable of the offence.
(ii) The PDPP Act to contain provision to make the bellwethers of the organization, which calls
the direct action, guilty of abetment of the offence.
(iii) The PDPP Act to contain a provision for rebuttable posit.
(iv) Enable the police officers to arrange videography of the activities damaging public property.
Further, in In Re:Destruction Of Public & Private Property v. State Of A.P. & Ors; AIR 2009 SC
2266, the Apex Court took the suo moto cognizance on the increasing cases of vandalism of the
public property in the name of hartals, bands, agitations, etc. Further, it issued the guidelines in
the virtue of Thomas Committees, which are as-
(I) The organizer shall meet the police to review and revise the route to be taken and to lay
down conditions for a halcyon march or protest;
(II) All weapons, including knives, lathis and the like shall be enjoined;
(III) An undertaking is to be provided by the organizers to ascertain a placid march with
marshals at each germane junction;
(IV) The police and State Government shall ascertain video graph of such protests to the

26
Namita Bajpai, “Lucknow admin attaches properties of anti-CAA protesters accused of vandalism”, The Indian
Express, (Aug 16, 2020), available at: <https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2020/jul/01/lucknow-admin-
attaches-propeties-of-anti-caa-protesters-accused-of-vandalism-2163963.html> (last visited on Jan. 21, 2021).
27
Ibid
28
Apurva Vishwanath, “Destruction of public property: What the law says, what SC directed” The Indian Express
(Dec. 16, 2019), available at: < https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/destruction-of-public-property-what-
law-says-what-top-court-directed-6170546/#:~:text=The%20Prevention%20of%20Damage%20to,under%20the
%20Indian%20Penal%20Code.> (last visited on Jan. 14, 2021).
29
See In Re:Destruction Of Public & Private Property vs State Of A.P. & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 2266.
maximum extent possible;
(V) The person in charge to supervise the demonstration shall be the Superintendent of Police
in case of one district and the highest police officer in the State, where the situation stretches
beyond one district;
(VI) In the event that demonstrations turn bellicose, the officer-in-charge shall ascertain that
the events are video graphed through private operators and withal request such further
information from the media and others on the incidents in question.
(VII) The police shall immediately apprise the State Government with reports on the events if
any damage or destruction is caused.
(VIII) The State Government shall prepare a report on the police reports and other information
and shall file a petition in the High Court or Supreme Court to take suo motu action.
Also, in the same case, the Court agreed that that there are the cases of abetment in the act
of vandalism. Hence, it asserted as the remedy as-
“Of course, it is normally difficult to prove abetment of the offence with the help of
direct evidence. This flaw can be remedied to a great extent by making an
additional provision in PDPP Act to the effect that specified categories of leaders of
the organization which make the call for direct actions resulting in damage to
public property, shall be deemed to be guilty of abetment of the offence. At the
same time, no innocent person, in spite of his being a leader of the organization
shall be made to suffer for the actions done by others. This requires the inclusion of
a safeguard to protect such innocent leaders."30

The Court here admitted that there is a need of proper legislation in lieu of Vandalism against
Public Property. The guidelines issued in these cases proved to be impactful in the later cases.
Taking into account the reports, the Apex Court, in absence of legislation on the subject,
issued guidelines to the effect that this Court or the High Court may take suo motu action, set
up a machinery to investigate and to award compensation. 31 In Koshy Jacob v. Union of
India32, the petition was filed to seek the direction for the implementation of the guidelines
issued in In Re: Damage and Destruction of Public Property’s case. However, the court did
not grant any relief as the offenders were not the party in the case. One of the cases may
include that of Hardik Patel. The police, in his case had contended that the "unlawful"
gathering had led to violence, in which over a dozen youths were killed and property was

30
AIR 2009 SC 2266
31
Koshy Jacob v. Union of India, 2018(1) CHN (SC) 98
32
In Re:Destruction Of Public & Private Property vs State Of A.P. & Ors, AIR 2009 SC 2266.
 damaged.33 Some another illustration may include the famous Anti-CAA protests in
Lucknow. In 2018, Issuing fresh guidelines on a PIL that raised the issue of ‘destruction of
public and private properties by self-appointed keepers of public morality’, the court said,34

“Persons who have initiated, promoted, instigated or any way caused to occur
any act of violence against cultural programmes or which results in loss of life or
damage to public or private property either directly or indirectly, shall be made
liable to compensate the victims of such violence.”

VII. Toothless Legislations against Vandalism of Public Property

In India additionally, we often find the cases of mischief or vandalism, either in public property
or private property.
According to the report of National Crime Record Bureau published in 2018, there were 7190
incidences in respect to Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 in 2018, although
showing a slight decrease as compared in 2017 which was 7910. However, incidences with
respect to Defacement of Public Property Act reported an increase from 5865 in 2017 to 5968
in 2018. The below data may corroborate the situation:

Source: NCRB Report 2018

Hence, one can not say that the legislation is actually working. These are, no doubt a small

33
Patidar Agitation Case: SC to Hear Congress Leader Hardik Patel's Plea on March 20 NEWS18 (August 20, 2020),
https://www.news18.com/news/politics/patidar-agitation-case-sc-to-hear-congress-leader-hardik-patels-plea-on-
march-20-2528797.html
34
Those giving stir call will be held liable for vandalism: Supreme Court, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Aug 17, 2020, 12.54
PM), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/those-giving-stir-call-will-be-held-liable-for-vandalism-
supreme-court/story-5QLoklNEgEqGjlbe7GNVzK.html.
number but proved to be quite expensive for the nation. ‘According to the data collected by
Assocham, Cauvery Water Dispute (2016) caused a loss of Rs. 20,000 Crore in Tamil Nadu
and Karnataka. Further, Jat quota protests in 2016 caused the damage worth Rs. 34,000 Crore
in northern states. Moreover the Dera Saccha Sauda violence cost the Haryana exchequer Rs.
126 Crore.’35 This money could be used in some development processes of the nation. But
unfortunately, the state had to bear that cost and ultimately, the taxpayers. It is public property
that often bears the brunt of protests, but there's authentically no one to send the bill for the
damages, remaining the bill unsent. While Supreme Court guidelines subsist against the
ravagement of property, they affix liability on the bellwether who gave the call to protest. But
in cases of mass mobilization, there is no identifiable bellwether/organization. Even in cases,
where mass forms of kineticism have poster boys, it can be argued in court that they never gave
the clarion call unless proved otherwise.
Street art can be visually perceived from the streets of Shaheen Bagh to Hong Kong. One
cannot forget the vandalism caused during the Anti CAA protest. People peregrinated here with
buckets of white paint to deface all the protest-cognate slogan graffiti on the Jamia Millia
Islamia university walls. Street art has become macro cosmically acknowledged as a technique
through which artists can make their work available to a more astronomically immense
audience. We are already habituated to defacement, to visually perceiving walls splattered
with paan stains and peeling stickers of political parties pasted over fading signs that verbally
express ‘Stick No Bills’. Roadside walls frequently accommodate public urinals. This careless
utilization of public space carries a quasi-licit status because of the sheer impracticality of
enforcing vandalism laws in such a socio-political context. Consequently, the element of shock
or discomfort that is so essential to graffiti is disoriented here. In 2010 Artist Daku  painted the
F-word across nine buildings in the city as an act of defiance against Mumbai police’s cracking
down on bars and pubs.  . Further, Bengaluru-based visual artist Shilo Shiv Suleiman, a
Bengaluru based artist paints murals and street art that promote women’s issues. These works
are apprised by her own aesthetics, but she additionally collaborates with communities to
remain sensitive to their concerns.
VIII. Provisions regarding Vandalism in different countries (need for suggestion)
Different countries across the world have the different provisions and statutes in respect of
Vandalism. In other countries withal, the law is in practice. In the present study vandalism was
defined as the offense "malicious mischief," specifically the willful destruction, damage, or
defacement of property, keeping with the definition of vandalism as general property

35
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-no-one-pays-for-damage-to-public-
property/articleshow/72864510.cms
 destruction offered in the Corpus Juris Secundum.36 In other countries, sometimes it is known
as vandalism, sometimes malicious mischief. It is also in accord with the conclusion of
insurance underwriters who, finding vandalism per se unknown as a distinct offense in the
law, suggested that property loss from vandalism is covered by policies protecting against
"malicious mischief," which is defined generally as the willful or wanton and malicious
destruction, damage, or defacement of property.'37

United Kingdom
The offence of Mischief as defined in Section 425 of Indian Penal Code corresponds to what
is designated under the English law as malicious injury to property in which malice is
presumed by the nature of the act and its illegality. Chapter 48 of The Criminal Damage Act,
1971 asserts the penalization for the offence of destroying or damaging property. 38 The
provision asserts that a person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property
belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless that
such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence. The Criminal
Damage Act 1971 (the Act) is the primary source of offences involving damage to property.
Where the interference amounts to an impairment of the value or usefulness of the property to
the owner, then the necessary damage is established.39 It creates a statutory offence of arson
and abolished the common law offence.40 In a museum context examples of criminal damage
may be scratching initials on a statue with a nail or other sharp implement, spraying items with
corrosive substance, spraying slogans with aerosol cans, arson or smashing cases to steal
objects.’41 The most popular instance was the painting, which Rothko culminated between
1958 and 1959, and donated to Tate in 1968. In 2012, the painting was vandalized by a Polish
man who painted the words ‘A Potential Piece of Yellowism’ in a corner. The man was
confined for two years by London Court along with the emolument of £5 and £9 million and
verbalized his actions were “entirely deliberate, planned, and intentional”. Also student of
architecture, who punched a £20 million (about Rs. 1900) Picasso painting at Tate Modern in
December 2019, wasconfined to 18 months in jail by a court in London.42
United Sates

United States is one of the states which vests a huge bundle of rights among its citizens. But

36
Corpus Juris Secundum. Brooklyn, New York, 802 American Law Book Company, 1955
37
Digest of Statutes and Notation of Cases Respecting Riot, Malicious Mischief and Vandalism in States in
Western Underwriters Association Territory. Chicago, Western Underwriters Association, 1949, pp. 4-5.
38
KD Gaur
39
R v Whiteley [1991] 93 CAR 25
40
Section 11, Criminal Damage Act, 1971
41
https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/criminal-damage-act-1971/
42
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-happens-when-you-damage-a-valuable-piece-of-art-6572933/
the citizens who are guaranteed rights are also guaranteed liabilitites towards the state. One of
which is, Section 1361 of the U.S Code mentions about the Destruction of Government
property. This section prohibits actual physical damage or destruction of both real and personal
property, but mere adverse possession of that property without physical harm is insufficient to
violate the law.43 The government is not required to prove that defendant knew the property
belonged to the government, because government ownership is merely a 'jurisdictional fact'.44
Moreover Section 1668 forbids three distinct types of actions against such communications
systems: (1) willful or malicious destruction; (2) willful or malicious injury; and (3) willful or
malicious obstruction, hindering or delay of transmissions through the system.45 

About the State Legislation in United States, under California Penal Code 594 (a), a person is
guilty of vandalism when he or she defaces, damages or destroys "any real or personal
property not his or her own." In Texas Penal Code, if is an offence if a person intentionally
damages or defaces the tangible property of others. 46 In New York, Criminal Mischief is
punishable offence under various degrees ranging from one to four and is punishable from
$250 to $1500.47 It costs about Rs 19, 000 to Rs. 1,10,000 in Indian Currency.

Russia
In May 2018, a person was arrested immediately after he struck the painting with a metal pole.
At a press conference, Russia’s then Deputy Culture Minister Vladimir Aristarkhov said that his
Ministry expected the man to receive “the most severe punishment possible”.48 In April 2019, a
court in Moscow found Podporin guilty of vandalising the famous Repin, and sentenced him to
two and a half years in prison.
France
Criminal responsibility in French law is the obligation to answer for infractions committed and
to suffer the punishment provided by the legislation that governs the infraction in question. 49
Only a few months previously, acid had been thrown at the lower part of the Mona Lisa
painting when it was being shown in a museum in Montauban, France. Further, in 2007,
French-Cambodian Artist was fined after she kissed an all-white painting by the American artist
leaving a lipstick mark on the canvas. She was ordered to pay €1,000 to the owner, €500 to the
gallery, and a symbolic €1 to the artist. It costs about Rs. 89, 000 to owner, Rs. 45,000 to

43
United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783, 786 (6th Cir. 1977)
44
United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, 1004 (4th Cir. 1969)
45
United States v. Turpin, 65 F.3d 1207, 1211-12 (4th Cir. 1995)
46
Section 28.03 Texas Penal Code (Texas)
47
Section 148, New York State Penal Law (New York)
48
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/what-happens-when-you-damage-a-valuable-piece-of-art-6572933/
49
Cornu, Gérard; dir., Association Henri Capitant. "Vocabulaire juridique". Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
gallery.
China
In February 2014, Miami artist Maximo entered the Perez Art Museum, picked up a colour-
dipped vase by the Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, and threw it to the floor. The vase was
one of 16 in an installation by Ai titled “Coloured Vase”.
Charged with criminal mischief, Caminero was reported to have said that he had smashed the
artwork “for all the local artists in Miami that have never been shown in museums here”.
Canada
In the case of Canadian Criminal Code, public destruction is known as ‘public mischief’. For
property valued at less than $5,000 (about Four lakhs), the offender can be found censurable of
an indictable offence and liable to confinement for a term of up to two years; or may be found
guilty of an offence penalizable on summary conviction. Where the value of the property
exceeds $5,000 or for computer hacking, penalties can include up to 10 years behind bars.
Anyone who commits mischief that causes genuine hazard to life is culpable of an indictable
offence and is subject to confinement for life.

IX. Need for a Change

 India is also a nation that must come to grips with an ever-widening gulf between the laws on
its books and the dysfunctional, partial and often corrupt manner in which they are applied.50

Rebuttable Presumption
The committee51 had recommended that there should be the provision of rebuttable
presumption. The term rebuttable presumption has been derived from ‘praesumptio iuris
tantum’ meaning. This principle is significant in the Criminal Law. In Evidence Act, the seven
years absence creates rebuttable presumption of death. 52 Hence, the party claiming of being
alive has to prove the fact. In the same way, in the case Prevention for Damage of Public
Property Act, the party should prove that there ceases to be any kind of vandalism from his
side. But the two things must be clear:
1) There must be the damage of property caused by direct action of the accused.
2) Accused must be present at the pace of incidence.

50
Devesh Kapur, Milan Vaishnav, Strengthening India’s rule of law LIVEMINT (jan 19, 2021)
https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/N3pY337lNutBRtXQs7GO3O/Strengthening-Indias-rule-of-law.html
51
Thomas committee
52
Section 108, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
From that stage the burden can be shifted to the accused to prove his innocence. 53 This
principle is opposite of the principle of Presumption of Innocence and is necessary to make the
accused strictly liable. An inference could be drawn from U.S provision of Sexual Offences Act,
2003. According to Section 75 of the said Act imposes the burden of proof upon the
defendant/accused to prove the presumptions false. This provision minimizes the scope of the
accused to flee from his liability.

Absolute Liability

The person liable for the vandalizing the properties must be held liable as par with the absolute
liability principle laid down in Oleum Gas Leak case. The Nariman Committee is of the view
that it is in the spirit of the observation in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India54 that the Apex Court
needs to lay down principles on which liability could be fastened and damages assessed in
cases in which due to comportment of mobs and riotous groups public and private property is
vandalized and loss of life and injury is occasioned to irreprehensible persons. 55 The person
must make accountable for all the losses and damages caused due to him.

Exemplary Damages and Heavy Punishments

Exemplary Damages is yet another must to add provision to minimize the bills of the damages
done by the people. While one of the main purposes of tort law is to put the victim in the
position that is as proximate as possible to the condition that they were in afore the incident
transpired, the definition of exemplary damages does not line up with that purport. Indeed, the
purport of exemplary and punitive damages is to penalize and deter wrongful conduct. Hence,
it will be at par with that of paying the bills of something one did.

It is further recommended that the heavy penalties and imprisonment should be included in the
provisions. Inference could be drawn from that of Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 where the penalty
of Rs. 5,000 and above. This has somehow created a circumstances where the denizens must
have to follows the laws like wearing helmets, carrying driving licenses or otherwise. Hence,
the heavy penal provisions are quite a significant step in minimizing the unnecessary damages
to the nation.

Leaders

The main gamers of the act should be made liable. It is the leader that instigates the whole

53
Destruction of Public and Private Properties vs. State of A.P. and Ors. \ MANU/SC/0575/2009.
54
[1987] 1 SCR 819.
55
Destruction of Public and Private Properties vs. State of A.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0575/2009.
process. Hence, the leaders must pay the bills of the damages caused. Moreover, a Bona fide
certificate and declaration should be submitted to the authorities stating that the assembly
would be peaceful and the leader(s) is ready to pay the damages. This will ensure the
accountability and answerability of the wrongdoers. It is further recommended that the
previous record of leaders must also be concerned. If he is regular wrongdoer, he must not be
given the permission to conduct strike. This will come under the reasonable restriction of
Article in public interest and tranquility.

Provision for Abetment

Abetment for an offence is also an offence under Criminal Justice System. Hence, the provisions
for the offence of abetment should also be penalized and should be held liable. Inference could
be drawn from federal law56 in American Constitution which penalizes the offence of inciting an
riot,57 to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; 58 to commit any act of
violence in furtherance of a riot;59  or, to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or
carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot 60 for the term not less
than 5 years along with the compensation.

Proper execution of law

X. Conclusion

Vandalism is certainly a very burning issue under the Criminal Justice System. Every country is
doing its best to eliminate this. To summarize, then, it would seem that it is not genuinely
possible or productive to endeavor to get a precise estimate of the true extent of vandalism.
Reporting quandaries and, to some extent, definition quandaries make it virtually infeasible to
do this. In integration, as noted, virtually every puerile person commits some form of
vandalism at some point each year; hence, the simplistic answer to questions about the extent
of vandalism, is that it is ubiquitous that people, especially puerile people, can be found. It is
pellucid that the people are solicitous with vandalism, many of them perceiving that it is more
of a quandary than it was in the past. On the other hand, not all the quantifications of

56
18 U.S.C. § 2101 - U.S. Code
57

58

59

60
 vandalism show a uniform increase in incidence; however, some measures, such as the
number of reported cases of vandalism to the police have shown definite increases over the
past ten years. These latter data may, of course, reflect the incremented concern that the
public has about the quandary of vandalism and the costs of rehabilitations rather than an
incrementation in vandalism itself. What is pellucid, however, and what does seem to have
paramount implicative insinuations in endeavoring to understand and do something about
vandalism is that the nature and extent of the quandary does vary from community to
community. It would have been ideal, one could argue, to endeavor to ascertain something
about the paramount distinctions between communities in the province that do and do not have
vandalism quandaries. Lamentably, such long, intricate, and extravagant programs of research
were outside of the terms of reference. However, they are an area that may well be worthwhile
looking into as future areas of research.

In short, there is no single interpretation applicable to all cases of vandalism, and there is no
universal remedy.61
Right to privacy- This fundamental right provides lungs to the edifice of our entire constitutional
system. A slightest injury to it is impermissible as that may be fatal for our values designed and
depicted in the preamble of the constitution.
In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side in The City of Lucknow vs. State of U.P. (09.03.2020 - ALLHC)
: MANU/UP/0676/2020

61
file:///C:/Users/hp/Downloads/Pdf%20Document/18FedProbation14.pdf