The Bench, led by Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, referred to its previous ruling in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and stated that while the ruling is binding on all authorities, the Court cannot oversee or monitor such incidents in every part of the country.
NEW DELHI: Today (11th Feb): The Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), which is associated with the CPI. The PIL raised concerns about the rising incidents of mob lynching and violence, especially by cow vigilantes.
The Bench, led by Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, referred to its previous ruling in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India and stated that while the ruling is binding on all authorities, the Court cannot oversee or monitor such incidents in every part of the country.
During the hearing, Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing NFIW, argued that there was non-compliance with the guidelines set by the Tehseen Poonawalla case. He also highlighted how private individuals were being given powers for cow protection through government notifications, which he believed was fueling the issue. He pointed out that, in many cases, First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed against the victims of mob violence rather than the perpetrators.
Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General (SG) representing the government, argued that mob lynching had already been recognized as a distinct offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS). He emphasized that the law and state machinery should handle individual cases.
“So far as the first part, it is binding on all. If there is a violation, the law will take its own course. Under BNSS, mob lynching is a separate offense. People keep filing different IAs. Only Tehseen Poonawalla is required to be complied,” said the SG.
He also pointed out that if state governments had issued notifications giving private individuals powers for cow protection, these could be challenged before the respective High Courts.
“Even if states have conferred such powers, it can be challenged before High Courts,” the SG argued.
After considering all the arguments, the Bench ruled that the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. Any non-compliance with the guidelines can be challenged through legal remedies. The Court also declined to issue any directive for uniform compensation to victims of mob lynching, as it stated that compensation should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
“What would be adequate compensation would differ. No uniform direction can be issued to authorities. It would be taking away discretion for determining compensation,” the Bench explained. The Court further stated that challenges to the validity of 13 state enactments related to mob lynching should be raised before the respective jurisdictional High Courts. “
Again, if there is non-compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla, the aggrieved person has a remedy in law. Sitting in Delhi, we can’t monitor incidents in different areas in different states of the country. Such micromanagement would not be feasible,” the Court added.
Despite Pasha pointing out the alleged non-compliance by the states, the Court maintained that the appropriate legal course was already available.
The PIL was thus disposed of. The Court had earlier warned five states, including Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Bihar, for their failure to file counter-affidavits in the case.
On April 16, 2024, the Court had also asked the Petitioner not to be selective about highlighting incidents of mob lynching based on religion, caste, or community.
The Court specifically asked whether the Petitioner included the Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case, where a tailor was beheaded by assailants allegedly for supporting Nupur Sharma’s controversial remarks. The incident was filmed by the assailants and a video was circulated online, with threats issued to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
ALSO READ: Mob Lynching Provisions|| “The Way Ahead”: Former CJI UU Lalit Praises New Criminal Laws
The Supreme Court had issued a notice in July 2023 in response to the PIL, seeking compliance with the 2018 judgment in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla case. The PIL pointed out the alarming rise in lynching cases, especially against the Muslim community, despite the clear guidelines issued by the Court. It highlighted incidents such as the lynching of Jaharuddin, a 55-year-old truck driver in Saran district, Bihar, who was allegedly killed on suspicion of carrying beef.
The PIL also stated that the government’s inaction, despite the preventive, punitive, and remedial measures outlined by the Court, contributed to the rising incidents of mob violence.
The NFIW further argued that the state had a “sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens from unruly elements and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with utmost sincerity and true commitment.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
