NEW DELHI: Vandalisation of public property cannot be allowed, the Supreme Court observed on Friday while referring to violent protests by Kanwar pilgrims in the National Capital.
"Damage to public properties is a serious issue. This is a grave situation and this must stop. We will take action and won't wait for amendments," a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said.
The observations came after the government's lawyer, Attorney General K K Venugopal, told the court, "Every week we have major riots, including educated people. Kanwariyas are overturning vehicles in Delhi. When the film 'Padmavat' was to be released, one group gave open threat that it will cut the nose of the lead actress. Nothing has happened. No FIR. We had Maratha protests and SC/ST protests. There has to be an FIR and responsibilities fixed."
Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, "You may burn your own house and be a hero, but you cannot damage third party property."
"What is your suggestion?, the court asked the AG.
"If the Superintendent of Police is made responsible directly, then the scenario will change", the AG responded, citing the example of how the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had put a check on illegal construction by holding the officer concerned directly responsible for violation of norms.
Every year, thousands of devotees of Lord Shiva take up the kanwar pilgrimage, walking from their homes in various states to Haridwar and Gangotri in Uttarakhand to fetch pots filled with water from the river Ganga.
A video clip shows a senior Uttar Pradesh police officer showering rose petals from a helicopter on the pilgrims, a gesture he said was meant to welcome them.
The devotees have been caught on video in recent weeks damaging public and private property after minor arguments.
Justice D Y Chandrachud said, "Half the portion of the highway between Allahabad and Varanasi is blocked and it takes five hours to reach Allahabad from Varanasi."
The observations came during hearing on a petition filed by Kodungalur Film Society against damage to property during protests against the movie Padmaavat, which Rajput groups claimed had hurt their sentiments.
The petitioner argued that a 2009 Supreme Court verdict on the subject was not being implemented.
The court reserved its order for framing new guidelines to prevent such incidents in future.