Summary
An advocate delayed on the road by an agitation sought implementation of the Court’s earlier guidelines concerning destruction of property during protests. The Court noted the Union’s proposed legislation and expressed hope for its enactment within a reasonable time, while leaving the petitioner’s individual claim to the appropriate forum.
Issues
- Whether further directions were required to implement safeguards against destruction of property during agitations.
- Whether the petitioner’s individual compensation claim could be determined in the absence of the organisers.
Held
- The earlier guidelines concerning preventive action, evidence collection and compensation were to operate until relevant legislation was framed. The Court recalled that it could not direct the enactment of legislation. Proposed statutory presumptions reproduced from committee recommendations were not declared enacted law. (¶ 5–9)
- The Court expressed hope that the proposed law would address criminal liability, administrative failures and remedies for victims within a reasonable time. Appointment of district or additional district judges to handle such matters was a suggestion for consideration during legislation, rather than an appointment direction. (¶ 10)
- The organisers were not before the Court. The petitioner remained free to pursue his individual remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. (¶ 11)
Result
Writ petition disposed of, with liberty to pursue the individual claim before the appropriate forum. No individual compensation was awarded.