Supreme Court issues guidelines to curb mob violence and lynching: Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India (17 July 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 July 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Can self-proclaimed protectors of law take matters into their own hands? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment concerning the alarming rise of mob violence and lynching incidents. The Court, recognizing the threat to the rule of law, issued a series of guidelines aimed at preventing and addressing such acts of violence. This judgment underscores the State’s duty to protect its citizens and uphold the principles of justice.

The bench was composed of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by Tehseen S. Poonawalla, a social activist, under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner sought action against cow protection groups involved in violence and the removal of violent content from social media. The petition also challenged the constitutionality of certain state laws related to animal preservation. The core concern was the increasing incidents of mob violence and lynching, often carried out by self-styled vigilante groups under the guise of protecting cows or other similar causes.

The petitioner sought directions against the State Governments to take immediate action against groups indulging in violence, especially in the name of cow protection. They also sought the removal of violent content from social media. The petitioner also prayed for declaring certain provisions of the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954, the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976, and the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 as unconstitutional. However, the court did not deal with the prayer challenging the constitutionality of the statutes.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took up the matter after a series of incidents of mob violence and lynching were brought to its attention through various writ petitions. Initially, the Court sought responses from the Union of India and the State Governments regarding the steps taken to curb vigilantism. The Court also directed the states to nominate Nodal Officers in each district to ensure that vigilantes do not take the law into their own hands. The Court also took note of the submissions made by the counsels regarding the role of the Union of India under Article 256 of the Constitution to issue directions to the States to curb vigilantism.

The Court, in its interim orders, directed the states to nominate senior police officers as Nodal Officers in each district to ensure that vigilantes do not take law into their own hands. The Court also directed the Chief Secretaries of each state to take steps for highway patrolling to prevent such crimes. The states were also directed to file compliance affidavits detailing the steps taken to implement the court’s directions.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the enforcement of existing laws and the constitutional duty of the state to protect its citizens. The Court referred to the following legal provisions:

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions or orders for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 256 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the obligation of States and the Union. It states that the executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.
• Article 257 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the control of the Union over States in certain cases. It states that the executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in the direction to be of national or military importance.
• Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section empowers any police officer to command an unlawful assembly to disperse.
• Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.
• Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the Victim Compensation Scheme.

The Court emphasized that the State has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the right to life and liberty, and to ensure that the rule of law is upheld. The Court also noted that the State has a responsibility to prevent crimes and to ensure that those who commit crimes are brought to justice through the established legal procedures.

Arguments

Submissions by the Petitioners:

• The petitioners argued that no individual or vigilante group can engage in lynching based on the perception that a crime has been committed.
• They emphasized that the supremacy of law must be recognized, and any punishment for a crime must be carried out through the legal mechanism.
• They contended that lynching and mob violence must be curbed by the executive, and no excuse can be tolerated.
• They highlighted the increase in incidents of targeted violence against minority communities, often based on suspicion and misinformation.
• They argued that the Central Government should intervene under Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution to issue directions to the State Governments.
• They asserted that self-proclaimed vigilantes have taken the law into their own hands, targeting citizens belonging to certain communities and lower strata of society.
• They submitted that action is required against the perpetrators of lynching when approached by the family members of the victim.
• They emphasized that it is the duty of the Central and State Governments to ensure that members of the minorities are not targeted by mob violence and vigilante groups.
• They placed reliance on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others [2018 (5) SCALE 51].

Submissions by the Respondents:

• The Union of India submitted that the controversy relates to the States, as law and order is a State subject. However, they clarified that the Union of India does not support the activities of vigilantes.
• The State Governments submitted that they have taken action against persons involved in vigilantism and have booked them for relevant offences.
• Some State Governments submitted that they have nominated senior police officers as Nodal Officers in each district to ensure that vigilantes do not take law into their own hands.
• Some State Governments submitted that they have taken steps for highway patrolling to prevent such crimes.

Innovativeness of the Argument: The petitioners innovatively argued that the Central Government must intervene under Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution to issue directions to the State Governments to curb vigilantism. This argument highlighted the Central Government’s responsibility in maintaining law and order and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights across the country.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Court identified the core issue as:

1. The duty of the Court under the constitutional framework to deal with the primary grievance that pertains to cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching or, if we may say so, targeted violence and commission of offences affecting the human body and against private and public property by mobs under the garb of self-assumed and self-appointed protectors of law.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court relied on several authorities to support its reasoning:

On the importance of the Rule of Law:

• Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others [(2015) 3 SCC 467]: The Court quoted, “the law, the mightiest sovereign in a civilized society”.

On the State’s responsibility to maintain law and order:

• Nandini Sundar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547]: The Court stated that it is the duty of the States to strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens so that the dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted.
• Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and another [(2014) 5 SCC 252]: The Court held that it is the responsibility of the State Administration in association with the intelligence agencies of both the State and the Centre to prevent recurrence of communal violence in any part of the State.
• Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and another [(2016) 9 SCC 682]: The Court observed that the State Government shall do well to enquire into and find the causes for such communal unrest and strengthen the fabric of the society.

On the need to curb vigilantism:

• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others [2018 (5) SCALE 51]: The Court referred to this judgment to emphasize that no assembly of people can impose punishment and that they are entitled to lodge an FIR or inform the police.

On the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance:

• S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others [(1989) 2 SCC 574]: The Court referred to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. United Kingdom [1976 EHRR 737], emphasizing the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.

On the importance of Unity in Diversity:

• St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558]: The Court emphasized that the aim of our Constitution is unity in diversity and to impede any fissiparous tendencies for enriching the unity amongst Indians by assimilating the diversities.
• Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1997) 4 SCC 606]: The Court highlighted that religious tolerance is an important facet of ‘Unity in Diversity’.
• State of Karnataka and another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia [(2004) 4 SCC 684]: The Court stressed that ‘Unity in Diversity’ is the ideal way of life considering that our nation is a unification of people coming from diverse cultures, religions and races.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav [(1976) 4 SCC 213]: The Court observed that the State is secular and does not take sides with one religion or other prevalent in our pluralistic society.

On the procedure for arrest and detention:

• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416]: The Court referred to this case for guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273]: The Court referred to Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and emphasized that police officers must have reason to believe that the accused has committed the offence and that the arrest is necessary.

American Court Cases:

• Ex parte Riggins [(C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404]: The Court referred to this case for observations on the nature of lynching and its impact on the rule of law.
• Wilson v. Garcia [471 U.S. 261 (1985)]: The Court referred to the debates of the Parliament while enacting the Civil Rights Act of 1871, highlighting the inadequacy of local administrations in addressing violence.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, issued a series of guidelines to prevent and address mob violence and lynching. The Court emphasized that no individual or group can take the law into their own hands and that the State has a duty to protect its citizens. The Court also highlighted the importance of tolerance, unity in diversity, and the rule of law.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to emphasize the importance of the rule of law, the State’s responsibility to maintain law and order, the need to curb vigilantism, the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance, the significance of unity in diversity, and the procedure for arrest and detention.

• The Court used Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others [(2015) 3 SCC 467] to underscore the supremacy of law in a civilized society.
• The Court cited Nandini Sundar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2011) 7 SCC 547] to highlight the State’s duty to promote fraternity and protect the dignity of citizens.
• The Court referred to Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and another [(2014) 5 SCC 252] to emphasize the responsibility of the State Administration to prevent communal violence.
• The Court used Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and another [(2016) 9 SCC 682] to highlight the State Government’s duty to enquire into causes of communal unrest.
• The Court relied on Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others [2018 (5) SCALE 51] to emphasize that no assembly of people can impose punishment and that they are entitled to lodge an FIR or inform the police.
• The Court cited S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others [(1989) 2 SCC 574] and Handyside v. United Kingdom [1976 EHRR 737] to emphasize the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society.
• The Court referred to St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi [(1992) 1 SCC 558] to emphasize the aim of the Constitution as unity in diversity.
• The Court used Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and others v. State of U.P. and others [(1997) 4 SCC 606] to highlight that religious tolerance is an important facet of ‘Unity in Diversity’.
• The Court cited State of Karnataka and another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia [(2004) 4 SCC 684] to stress that ‘Unity in Diversity’ is the ideal way of life.
• The Court referred to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav [(1976) 4 SCC 213] to emphasize the secular nature of the State.
• The Court used D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [(1997) 1 SCC 416] for guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention.
• The Court cited Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another [(2014) 8 SCC 273] to emphasize the conditions under which an arrest can be made.
• The Court referred to Ex parte Riggins [(C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404] for observations on the nature of lynching and its impact on the rule of law.
• The Court used Wilson v. Garcia [471 U.S. 261 (1985)] to highlight the inadequacy of local administrations in addressing violence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by a deep concern for the rule of law, the protection of fundamental rights, and the need to preserve India’s secular and pluralistic ethos. The Court was particularly disturbed by the increasing incidents of mob violence and lynching, which it saw as a threat to the very fabric of Indian society. The Court emphasized that no individual or group can take the law into their own hands and that the State has a duty to protect its citizens from such violence.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to promote tolerance, unity in diversity, and respect for the fundamental rights of all individuals, irrespective of their caste, creed, race, or religion. The Court stressed that the State has a positive obligation to foster a secular, pluralistic, and multi-culturalistic social order and to ensure that all citizens are treated with dignity and respect.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered various interpretations of the law and rejected any notion that vigilante groups could act as self-appointed protectors of the law. The Court emphasized that the State has a duty to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under the law and that the legal process must be followed in all cases. The final decision was based on the need to uphold the rule of law, protect fundamental rights, and preserve the secular and pluralistic ethos of the country.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The State has a constitutional duty to protect its citizens from mob violence and lynching.
• No individual or group can take the law into their own hands.
• The State must take preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to curb such incidents.
• The rule of law must be upheld in all cases.
• Tolerance, unity in diversity, and respect for fundamental rights must be promoted.

The Court did not have any dissenting opinions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combination of legal principles, constitutional values, and a deep concern for the welfare of the citizens. The Court’s decision has potential implications for future cases involving mob violence and lynching, as it sets a precedent for the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens and uphold the rule of law.

“Law has to be regarded as the foundationof a civilized society, and it has to be treated as the mightiest sovereign in a civilized society.”

Guidelines Issued by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court issued the following guidelines to prevent and address mob violence and lynching:

Preventive Measures:

1. Identification of Districts: The State Governments shall identify districts, sub-divisions and/or villages where instances of mob violence and lynching have been reported in the recent past.
2. Nodal Officers: The State Governments shall designate a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as a Nodal Officer in each district. These officers will be responsible for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching.
3. Special Task Force: The State Governments shall constitute a Special Task Force to gather intelligence about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speech, provocative statements, and fake news.
4. Highway Patrolling: The State Governments shall ensure that there is adequate highway patrolling in areas where incidents of mob violence and lynching are likely to occur.
5. Awareness Programs: The State Governments shall conduct awareness programs to educate the public about the consequences of mob violence and lynching.
6. Social Media Monitoring: The State Governments shall monitor social media platforms for the spread of hate speech, fake news, and provocative statements.
7. Law and Order: The State Governments shall ensure that law and order is maintained in all areas.

Remedial Measures:

1. FIR Registration: The police shall immediately register an FIR against the perpetrators of mob violence and lynching.
2. Investigation: The police shall conduct a thorough investigation into the incidents of mob violence and lynching.
3. Compensation: The State Governments shall provide compensation to the victims of mob violence and lynching and their families.
4. Medical Assistance: The State Governments shall ensure that the victims of mob violence and lynching receive prompt medical assistance.
5. Witness Protection: The State Governments shall provide protection to the witnesses of mob violence and lynching.
6. Victim Support: The State Governments shall provide support to the victims of mob violence and lynching and their families.

Punitive Measures:

1. Speedy Trial: The State Governments shall ensure that the trials of the perpetrators of mob violence and lynching are conducted expeditiously.
2. Punishment: The perpetrators of mob violence and lynching shall be punished severely.
3. Disciplinary Action: The police officers who are found to be negligent in their duty shall be subjected to disciplinary action.
4. Accountability: The State Governments shall be held accountable for their failure to prevent and address mob violence and lynching.

Summary of Guidelines

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India has several significant implications:

• State Responsibility: The judgment reinforces the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens from mob violence and lynching. It clarifies that the State cannot abdicate its duty to maintain law and order and that it must take proactive measures to prevent such incidents.
• Accountability: The judgment holds the State Governments accountable for their failure to prevent and address mob violence and lynching. It emphasizes that the State Governments must take concrete steps to implement the guidelines issued by the Court.
• Rule of Law: The judgment underscores the importance of the rule of law and clarifies that no individual or group can take the law into their own hands. It emphasizes that all citizens must be treated equally under the law and that the legal process must be followed in all cases.
• Preventive Measures: The guidelines issued by the Court mandate the State Governments to take preventive measures, such as identifying vulnerable districts, designating Nodal Officers, forming Special Task Forces, and monitoring social media platforms. These measures are aimed at preventing incidents of mob violence and lynching before they occur.
• Remedial Measures: The guidelines also mandate the State Governments to take remedial measures, such as registering FIRs, conducting thorough investigations, providing compensation to victims, and ensuring prompt medical assistance. These measures are aimed at addressing the consequences of mob violence and lynching.
• Punitive Measures: The guidelines further mandate the State Governments to take punitive measures, such as conducting speedy trials, punishing perpetrators severely, and taking disciplinary action against negligent police officers. These measures are aimed at deterring future incidents of mob violence and lynching.
• Public Awareness: The judgment emphasizes the need for public awareness programs to educate the public about the consequences of mob violence and lynching. These programs are aimed at promoting tolerance, unity in diversity, and respect for fundamental rights.
• Impact on Law Enforcement: The judgment has significant implications for law enforcement agencies. It requires them to take a more proactive role in preventing and addressing mob violence and lynching. It also holds them accountable for their failure to do so.
• Impact on the Public: The judgment has the potential to create a more secure and inclusive society. It sends a strong message that mob violence and lynching will not be tolerated and that the State will take all necessary measures to protect its citizens.
• Impact on Social Media: The judgment highlights the role of social media in spreading hate speech and fake news. It requires the State Governments to monitor social media platforms and take action against those who use them to incite violence.

Critical Analysis

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that addresses the critical issue of mob violence and lynching in India. The judgment is commendable for several reasons:

Strengths:

• Clear Stand on Rule of Law: The judgment clearly states that no individual or group can take the law into their own hands. It emphasizes that the State is responsible for maintaining law and order and that all citizens must be treated equally under the law.
• Comprehensive Guidelines: The guidelines issued by the Court are comprehensive and cover all aspects of mob violence and lynching, including prevention, remediation, and punishment.
• Accountability of the State: The judgment holds the State Governments accountable for their failure to prevent and address mob violence and lynching. It emphasizes that the State Governments must take concrete steps to implement the guidelines issued by the Court.
• Emphasis on Fundamental Rights: The judgment emphasizes the importance of fundamental rights, such as the right to life and liberty, and the State’s duty to protect these rights.
• Promotion of Tolerance and Unity: The judgment promotes tolerance, unity in diversity, and respect for fundamental rights. It emphasizes that the State has a positive obligation to foster a secular, pluralistic, and multi-culturalistic social order.
• Recognition of Social Media’s Role: The judgment recognizes the role of social media in spreading hate speech and fake news. It requires the State Governments to monitor social media platforms and take action against those who use them to incite violence.
• Emphasis on Speedy Trial: The judgment emphasizes the need for speedy trials in cases of mob violence and lynching. This is important to ensure that justice is served and that the perpetrators are punished.

Weaknesses:

• Implementation Challenges: The implementation of the guidelines issued by the Court may be challenging. The State Governments may lack the resources or the political will to implement the guidelines effectively.
• Lack of Specific Penalties: The judgment does not specify any penalties for the failure of the State Governments to implement the guidelines. This may reduce the effectiveness of the judgment.
• Over-Reliance on State Machinery: The judgment relies heavily on the State machinery to prevent and address mob violence and lynching. This may not be sufficient in all cases, as the State machinery may be biased or ineffective in certain areas.
• Lack of Focus on Root Causes: The judgment does not address the root causes of mob violence and lynching, such as social inequality, religious intolerance, and political polarization. Addressing these root causes is essential to prevent future incidents of mob violence and lynching.
• Potential for Misuse: The guidelines issued by the Court, especially those related to social media monitoring, may be misused by the State Governments to suppress dissent or curtail freedom of speech.
• Absence of a Centralised Mechanism: The judgment does not provide for a centralized mechanism to monitor the implementation of the guidelines by the State Governments. This may make it difficult to track the progress made in addressing mob violence and lynching.

Overall Assessment:

Despite its weaknesses, the judgment is a significant step forward in addressing the issue of mob violence and lynching in India. The judgment provides a framework for the State Governments to take concrete steps to prevent and address such incidents. It also emphasizes the importance of the rule of law, fundamental rights, and tolerance. However, the effectiveness of the judgment will depend on the willingness of the State Governments to implement the guidelines in letter and spirit. It is also important to address the root causes of mob violence and lynching to achieve long-term solutions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that addresses the critical issue of mob violence and lynching in India. The judgment emphasizes the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens, uphold the rule of law, and promote tolerance and unity. The guidelines issued by the Court provide a framework for the State Governments to take concrete steps to prevent and address mob violence and lynching. The judgment also highlights the importance of fundamental rights and the need to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under the law. While the judgment has its limitations, it is a significant step forward in addressing the issue of mob violence and lynching in India.

Key Takeaways:

• The State has a constitutional duty to protect its citizens from mob violence and lynching.
• No individual or group can take the law into their own hands.
• The State must take preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to curb such incidents.
• The rule of law must be upheld in all cases.
• Tolerance, unity in diversity, and respect for fundamental rights must be promoted.
• Social media platforms must be monitored to prevent the spread of hate speech and fake news.
• Speedy trials must be conducted to ensure that perpetrators are punished.

Long-Term Implications:

• The judgment sets a precedent for the State’s responsibility to protect its citizens from mob violence and lynching.
• It provides a framework for the State Governments to take concrete steps to prevent and address such incidents.
• It underscores the importance of the rule of law, fundamental rights, and tolerance.
• It has the potential to create a more secure and inclusive society.
• It may lead to changes in law enforcement practices and social media monitoring.
• It may also lead to increased public awareness about the consequences of mob violence and lynching.

The long-term impact of the judgment will depend on the willingness of the State Governments to implement the guidelines in letter and spirit and on the collective efforts of all stakeholders to address the root causes of mob violence and lynching. The judgment is a reminder that the State has a duty to protect its citizens and that no one is above the law.