During a PIL session, the Supreme Court discussed the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor attacked in Udaipur in June 2022, highlighting concerns about increasing mob violence against minorities, especially victims of cow vigilante attacks, and advocating for immediate financial aid for affected families.
NEW DELHI: Today (16th April): The murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor brutally attacked outside his shop in Udaipur, Rajasthan, in June 2022, was discussed in the Supreme Court during a PIL session on Tuesday. The PIL raised concerns about rising mob violence against minorities, particularly victims of cow vigilante attacks, and called for urgent financial support for affected families.
READ ALSO: SC Agrees To Hear PIL Over Increasing Incidents Of Mob Lynching Of Muslims
The bench led by Justice BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Sandeep Mehta. During the hearing, the Court inquired about the murder of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was allegedly lynched in 2022 for sharing a social media post by former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma concerning Prophet Mohammad.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing the petitioners, stated that the particular case was not included in the present petition. The Court responded by stressing the importance of an all-encompassing approach, stating that the selection of cases should be unbiased, considering the inclusion of all states.
The Court inquired, “What about the tailor in Rajasthan, Kanhaiya Lal, who was lynched?”
When Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing the petitioners, stated that it was not part of the current petition,
The Court remarked, “You must ensure non-selectivity if all States are involved.”
The counsel representing the Gujarat government pointed out that only cases involving Muslims being lynched were being brought to the Court’s attention.
Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave submitted, “This is simply mob lynching of Muslims.”
However, the Court cautioned against making such arguments, stating,
“Do not base your submissions on our remarks. We are emphasizing that this is not about religion or caste; it must address the broader prevailing issue.”
The Court urged lawyers to be cautious with their arguments in court.
The PIL argues that the surge in mob violence and lynching is a direct consequence of the state’s lack of action and stems from a general narrative of ostracization faced by minority communities. In July of the previous year, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Central government and the police forces of six states regarding this matter.
During the hearing, Advocate Pasha claimed that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment to prevent mob violence were being violated by several states.
Referring to an incident from Chhattisgarh, the argument was made that
“The state’s affidavit suggests it was not mob lynching but a mere scuffle, despite news reports indicating it was due to alleged beef transportation. Denying such incidents complicates the pursuit of justice.”
Questioning the State’s response, Justice Gavai queried,
“Why hasn’t an FIR been filed against the 10-12 individuals involved in the assault?”
The State’s counsel assured the Court of looking into the matter.
Regarding a case from Haryana, Pasha pointed out,
“The common approach seems to be denying that it’s mob lynching at all.”
READ ALSO: SC-Hate Speeches Will Be Treated Alike
Upon adjournment, the Court directed,
“States must respond within six weeks regarding the action taken in such cases for further review post-vacations.”
Pasha also drew attention to a similar case in Haryana, stating that authorities were simply denying the incidents of mob lynching rather than taking appropriate action.
Case Title: National Federation of Indian Women vs Union of India and ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
