Lynching: How the SC aims to deal with “horrendous acts of mobocracy” in India

The Supreme Court today condemned the rise of mob violence and lynching in India, while advocating for a separate law to tackle the issue..While the Centre contemplates on framing a legislation in line with the Court’s directions, the three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud has passed a slew of guidelines to be followed to tackle the issue of mob lynching..The Bench called for the same while disposing of a batch of PILs, including one filed by Tehseen Poonawalla, who had petitioned the Supreme Court to ensure a strict crackdown on mob violence, given the recent spurt in reported incidents of cow vigilantism..The 45-page judgment authored by Chief Justice Misra is replete with observations made against those who resort to mob violence under the garb of being “self-assumed and self-appointed protectors of law.” The Court, in no uncertain terms, has held,.“…extrajudicial attempts under the guise of protection of the law have to be nipped in the bud; lest it would lead to rise of anarchy and lawlessness which would plague and corrode the nation like an epidemic.”.It has been repeatedly emphasised that mob violence and allied activities cannot be condoned, more so because it constitutes an infringement of Constitutional values and substantial justice..“The majesty of law cannot be sullied simply because an individual or a group generate the attitude that they have been empowered by the principles set out in law to take its enforcement into their own hands and gradually become law unto themselves… .…Just as one is entitled to fight for his rights in law, the other is entitled to be treated as innocent till he is found guilty after a fair trial. No act of a citizen is to be adjudged by any kind of community under the guise of protectors of law….…No individual can in his own capacity or as a part of a group, which within no time assumes the character of a mob, can take law into his/their hands and deal with a person treating him as guilty…And, needless to say, such ideas and conceptions not only create a dent in the majesty of law but are also absolutely obnoxious.”.The Court has also touched upon how the underlying issue relates to acceptance of plurality and the freedom of speech and expression in a democracy. Further, the Court has emphasised that crimes of mob lynching should be viewed in religion-neutral terms. As stated in the judgment,.“Crime knows no religion and neither the perpetrator nor the victim can be viewed through the lens of race, caste, class or religion. .The State has a positive obligation to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals irrespective of race, caste, class or religion. The State has the primary responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and multiculturalistic social order so as to allow free play of ideas and beliefs and co-existence of mutually contradictory perspectives. Stifling free voices can never bode well for a true democracy.”.The judgment also speaks out against the false narratives carried by the media and social media platforms, which had served to fuel instances of lynching in the county..“Lynching and mob violence are creeping threats that may gradually take the shape of a Typhon-like monster as evidenced in the wake of the rising wave of incidents of recurring patterns by frenzied mobs across the country instigated by intolerance and misinformed by circulation of fake news and false stories..…Besides, bystander apathy, numbness of the mute spectators of the scene of the crime, inertia of the law enforcing machinery to prevent such crimes and nip them in the bud and grandstanding of the incident by the perpetrators of the crimes including in the social media aggravates the entire problem.”.Ultimately, the Court found that it is apt for Parliament to enact a special legislation to tackle mob violence and lynching in the country..“…we think it appropriate to recommend to the legislature, that is, the Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. We have said so as a special law in this field would instill a sense of fear for law amongst the people who involve themselves in such kinds of activities.”.This apart, the Court has also issued a slew of directions to Central and State government authorities to tackle the sweeping phenomenon of mob violence..Opining that steps should be taken at every stage of the law, the judgment lists preventive, remedial and punitive measures to tackle mob violence and lynching..Preventive Measures.State Governments are to appoint District Nodal Officers, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police for preventive measures. A Special Task Force is to be constituted by the Nodal Officer to procure intelligence reports with regard to possible mob violence.Districts where lynching has taken place in recent past have to be identified within three weeksRegular meetings to be held by designated authorities including Nodal authorities and intelligence heads to devise strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence from the state level.Police officers should exercise powers under Section 129 of the CrPC to disperse mobs likely to resort to lynching/violence.Government at state and central levels should coordinate and work towards senstising law enforcement agencies on ways to prevent mob violence/lynching.The Director General of Police should issue a circular to the Superintendents of Police in regard to patrolling sensitive areas so that anti-social elements involved in such crimes are discouraged.The government must utilise media platforms to send out the message that lynching and mob violence would invite serious consequences,The Government must take steps to curb dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other material on social media platforms which are likely to incite mob violence and lynching.Cases under Section 153A of the IPC and other relevant provisions should be registered against persons who disseminate such content..Remedial Measures .FIRs should be lodged immediately against those engaging in mob violence, without undue delayThe Nodal officer should be informed of any mob violence, so that further steps can be taken to ensure no further harassment ensues for the victims or their families.Investigation in mob violence/lynching cases should be personally monitored by the Nodal Officer.State Governments should prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme as per Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) within one month.Mob violence/lynching cases should be tried by designated courts/Fast Track courts earmarked for the purpose in each district. Trial should be conducted on a day-to-day basis, and preferably concluded within six months.To set a stern example in cases of mob violence, convicted offenders should be served the maximum sentence as provided for under the IPCMeasures should be taken to protect and conceal the identity of the witnesses in mob violence casesVictims and/or their families should be given timely notice of court proceedings in cases of mob violence/lynching.Free legal aid should be given to victims or the next of kin of the deceased if they wish to avail the same.Punitive Measures.Disciplinary action should be taken against any authority failing to comply with the above directions to prevent/investigate/conduct the expeditious trial of crimes pertaining to mob violence of lynching. This would include departmental proceedings for deliberate negligence/misconduct. The department action should be completed preferably within six months by the authority of the first instance.The measures suggested by the Court should be carried out within four weeks. A compliance report is also to be filed within the said period..As the judgment concludes, the Court has emphasised that the state has to act positively and responsibly to tackle the issue, lest mob violence and lynchings start to characterise “the new normal”..“The horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become ‘the new normal.'”.The case has been listed to be taken up on August 20, for further directions..Senior Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners, while Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre..Read the judgment: