Many States Have Not Complied With Tehseen Poonawalla Guidelines on Mob Lynching: Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves Tells Supreme Court

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti is currently monitoring the compliance measures adopted by the union and state governments in terms of the court’s Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. In this 2018 decision, the court issued a set of comprehensive guidelines regarding the prevention of lynching and mob violence.

On the last occasion, while assessing the progress made by governments in implementing these directives, the court accepted Attorney General R Venkataramani’s suggestion that the Union Home Ministry would convene a meeting of state department heads to compile data on the status of compliance. The union ministry was asked to file an affidavit in the court stating the outcome of this meeting. The bench further instructed state governments to furnish year-wise data from 2018 detailing the number of complaints received, first information reports (FIR) registered, and chargesheets filed. The states were also asked to outline the preventive and remedial measures adopted by them in terms of the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment.

The hearing today was rescheduled to a non-miscellaneous day in the week commencing November 20, after a request was made on behalf of Attorney-General R Venkataramani. During the brief courtroom exchange, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde pointed out that while some state governments had submitted their compliance reports, the union government had not yet filed the affidavit indicating the outcome of the meeting with state department heads. 

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves remonstrated with the bench over an alleged failure of state governments to upload requisite data on their official websites. He also pointed out that nodal officers had not been appointed in many places, in violation of the court's orders. Alleging that many state governments have not implemented the Tehseen Poonawalla directives, Gonsalves strongly urged the court to direct them to make the relevant data available on their websites to promote transparency. 

An order will be passed when the attorney-general is present, Justice Khanna assured the senior counsel. When Gonsalves pressed further, accusing states of inaction, the judge remarked, "The fact that several states have filed their counter-affidavits show that there has been an active effort. This is not adversarial litigation. Mr Nataraj (ASG KM Nataraj) was also very clear about this on the last day."

At the end of the hearing, the bench pronounced a brief order adjourning the proceedings until November. "It is stated that the learned attorney-general is to appear in the matter. Relist in the week commencing November 20, 2023, on a non-miscellaneous day. Compliance with last order to be made by parties," the order stated.

Background

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court in 2018 issued guidelines to address the rising instances of cow vigilantism. This July 2018 verdict was handed down by a bench of the then-Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud, in a clutch of petitions filed by Congress leader Tehseen Poonawalla, social activist Tushar Gandhi and others.

The bench expressed grave concerns about the growing menace of mob vigilantism and underlined the need to eradicate this unlawful behaviour promptly. It cautioned against allowing lynching to become a norm, as it “undermines legal and formal institutions of the State and alters the constitutional order”. While addressing the State’s responsibility to maintain law and order, the court stressed the ‘solemn duty’ of the State to ensure that no individual or core group takes the law into their own hands. The bench also highlighted the significance of tolerance and pluralism in preserving a democratic society and warned against the erosion of these values.

In view of these, the Supreme Court issued a series of directives, outlining preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to address the issue of mob lynching. These included the appointment of nodal officers in each district, identifying areas with recent incidents of lynching, registering first information reports (FIR) swiftly, and creating victim compensation schemes, among others. Apart from this, the court strongly urged the parliament to enact a dedicated law to combat lynching, emphasising that “fear of the law and respect for its commands form the bedrock of a civilized society”.

Since this verdict was issued, the court has on occasion followed up on the steps adopted by the union and state governments to comply with the directions issued by it. A number of contempt petitions have also been filed pointing to the State’s alleged failure to prevent mob lynching. Notably, in July of this year, the court agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) raising alarm over an increase in cases of lynching and mob violence against Muslims, particularly by ‘cow vigilantes’, despite the court’s Tehseen Poonawalla ruling.

Case Details

Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016 and other connected matters