'Directions Issued Against Mob Violence Binding On All Authorities' : Supreme Court Disposes Of PIL To Curb Cow Vigilantism
Stating that directions already issued against lynching and mob violence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 11) disposed of a PIL which raised the issue of cow vigilantism and mob attacks.The Court stated that the directions issued in its 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment are binding on all authorities and that it was not feasible for it to monitor compliance by all States/Union...
Stating that directions already issued against lynching and mob violence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 11) disposed of a PIL which raised the issue of cow vigilantism and mob attacks.
The Court stated that the directions issued in its 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment are binding on all authorities and that it was not feasible for it to monitor compliance by all States/Union Territories by "sitting in Delhi". It also noted that the prayers raised in the petition were "omnibus" in nature.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran passed the order, stating,
"Second prayer is with regard to providing redressal in the cases of lynching and mob violence mentioned hereinabove to the victims and their families...a strict compliance with the punitive and remedial measures mentioned in para 14 of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. Insofar as the said prayer clause is concerned, again, if there is non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in Tehseen Poonawalla, an aggrieved person would have a remedy available to him in law. However, sitting here in Delhi, we can't monitor incidents taking place in different areas in different states of country. In our view, such micromanagement by this Court would not be feasible. If any other person is aggrieved with the directions, they can approach competent courts for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law."
Insofar as the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to the respondent-authorities for action in terms of Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India judgment, the Court said that when directions have already been issued, they are binding on all in view of Article 141 of the Constitution; as such, every authority will be bound to follow the directions in Tehseen Poonawalla.
In context of the petitioner's prayer for provision of "minimum uniform amount" as compensation for injuries to victims of mob lynching, it was opined that the amount of adequate compensation would differ on a case-to-case basis. Supposing grant of uniform compensation to person suffering from simple injury vis-a-vis person suffering grievous injury, the Court said that no uniform direction regarding compensation could be issued to the authorities.
"Doing so would be taking away discretion available to the Courts or the authorities in determination of compensation...A direction to pay uniform compensation would be unjust...We find that petition seeking such omnibus reliefs would neither be in interest of victims", the Court opined.
So far as the petitioner also sought to challenge the validity of 13 state enactments/notifications, which apparently conferred police powers (to enter premises, seize vehicles, etc.) on private persons/organizations to check cattle smuggling etc., the Court was of the opinion that it would be appropriate that persons who are aggrieved approach jurisdictional High Courts to challenge the validity or vires of the notifications.
"Insofar as the challenge to validity of 13 statutory enactments/notifications of different states is concerned, we find that the same will have to be tested on its own touchstone. In a generic petition, it would not be permissible for this Court to examine validity of 13 different legislations/public notifications."
To recap briefly, the PIL, filed by National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), raised concern regarding the alleged increase in cases of mob violence - particularly by cow vigilantes. It sought a direction from the Court for authorities to take action in terms of the decision in Tehseen Poonawalla, where comprehensive guidelines were issued to the Union and State governments regarding prevention of lynching and mob violence.
Pending since 2023, the case witnessed the top Court issue warning last year to 5 states (Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra and Bihar) over failure to file counter-affidavits in response to the PIL. On this occasion, it was directed that the affidavits of the 5 states be filed by their respective Chief Secretaries, failing which, the Chief Secretaries were to themselves remain present and show cause as to why action not be taken against them.
Though the states/UTs eventually filed their affidavits in the matter, the Court today found it non-feasible to monitor the issue across different states/UTs while sitting in Delhi. Notably, it was also informed during the hearing by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for Union) that mob lynching is now a separate offense under BNS, which entails consequences. Accordingly, the PIL was disposed of with liberty to aggrieved persons to approach jurisdictional High Courts. Advocate Nizam Pasha appeared for the petitioner.
Background
Through the PIL, NFIW urged the top court to issue a mandamus to authorities to take immediate action “in terms of the findings and directions in Tehseen Poonawalla” to address the growing problem. In this connection, the petition referred to two incidents of Muslims being lynched by a mob over a suspicion of smuggling beef in Bihar's Saran and Nashik in Maharashtra; an alleged assault by Bajrang Dal on a Muslim daily wage earner for transporting two cows; a violent attack, illegal detention, and humiliation of two Muslim men by an angry mob in Orissa's capital, Bhubaneshwar; and an attack on a bus carrying several Hajj pilgrims by a violent mob in Kota, Rajasthan.
The State machinery, NFIW further alleged, consistently failed to take adequate preventive and consequential action to curb the menace of lynching and mob violence. This was despite a ruling of the Supreme Court that the State has a 'sacrosanct duty' to protect its citizens from 'unruly elements' and 'perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism'.
The petitioner further submitted that the incidents of mob lynching and cow vigilantism should be seen as a result of false propaganda against minorities spread by means of public events as well as on social media channels, news channels, and films.
Besides praying for a writ of mandamus seeking the enforcement of the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines, NFIW also sought immediate relief for the lynching victims by asking for a portion of the total amount of compensation to be granted to the victims or their families immediately after the incident as 'interim compensation'.
Case Details: National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023
