Mob Lynching And Vigilantism- 'These Kind Of Instances Cannot Occur', Says SC, Reserves Judgment [Read Order]

“We intend to pass the judgment on the petitions, keeping the contempt alive...these kind of instances cannot occur...it is the obligation of the states to prevent the same...hence, an elaborate judgment is needed”, said CJI.The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on a string of writ petitions filed in the light of the rising issues relating to cow vigilantism.“The concept of vigilantism is not about any particular incident or motive...it is about mob violence...members of any concerned group cannot take the law into their hands...even if there is no law, they are nobody...”, remarked Chief Justice Dipak Misra“We can deal with this under Article 142...we have developed the concept in Shakti Vahini (honour killings)...compensation and monitoring of investigation are aspects that have to be looked into...also, what would be the point of a judgment without any preventive measures...”, the CJ opined.“By order dated September 6, 2017, Your Lordships have directed the appointment of nodal officers in each district of the states...despite this, an incident of lynching has occurred 60 km outside of Delhi two weeks back...Your Lordships have provided for highway patrolling (vide the aforesaid order), but such episodes are happening just off the highway...the directions are being flouted with impunity...that is why the contempt was brought...we want the substantive orders of this court to be implemented...Your Lordships had dispensed with the appearance of the Chief secretaries...they must be asked to be present...”, submitted Senior Counsel Indira Jaising, appearing on behalf of petitioner Tushar Gandhi.“Do not get into Article 257...for the law and order situation within the states, each state is responsible...”, noted the CJI.“The situation we are seeing in the country goes beyond law and order...(‘It is a crime’, interjected CJ Misra)...it is a crime with a pattern...”, responded Ms. Jaising.“We intend to pass the judgment on the petitions, keeping the contempt alive...these kind of instances cannot occur...it is the obligation of the states to prevent the same...hence, an elaborate judgment is needed”, asserted CJ Misra.Objecting to the application of the Union of India to be deleted as respondent in the matter, Ms. Jaising advanced, “I have prayed for a direction to the Centre to prevent vigilantism on the grounds of religion, race, caste and sex...4 days back, people were lynched in Maharashtra for allegedly having picked up some children...the instances have gone beyond mere cow vigilantism...these episodes are transpiring at the railways and the highways...these are all under the Union of India...they cannot just wash their hand off any responsibility...”“The UOI has annexed affidavits on advisories to handle such instances and what the state government may do...but to make a statute is unnecessary as of now...controlling the law and order is important for which Your Lordships can issue directions to the state governments...”, contended ASG P. S. Narasimha.“It is not enough for them to only prepare advisories...when it comes to a statute that is applicable all over India, it is the job of the Centre to ensure its implementation...”, argued Ms. Jaising.In this context, she indicated the 2017 apex court judgment in Swaraj Abhiyan v. UOI, wherein the implementation of the National Food Security Act of 2013 by the states was dealt with.In his turn, Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves indicated the 2014 judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. UOI, in so far as it was observed therein that “the Central Government has always provided support to the State Governments and Union Territory administrations in several ways to maintain communal harmony in the country and in case of need the Central Government also sends advisories in this regard from time to time. However, in such cases, as police and public order being a State subject under the 7th Schedule of Constitution, the responsibility of registration and prosecution of crime including those involved in hate speeches, primarily rests with the respective State Governments”“In this judgment, Your Lordships had said that there is no need for any guidelines as a statutory scheme exists...the same only has to be implemented...”, he elaborated.“My petition deals with hate speech...Your Lordships had directed nodal officers to be appointed who shall look into instances of lynching and take steps to prevent the same...in none of the cases that we have documented was any action taken...statements were made by prominent people which had a jarring link to the act of lynching...the provocation was grave...”, continued Mr. Gonsalves.Referring to sections 153A, 153B, 295, 295A and 298 of the IPC, he stated that the statutory framework is clear.“So in the event of an offence under these provisions, notice should be taken immediately and FIR registered...”, ventured the bench.The bench also participated in a discussion with Ms. Jaising as to...

Mob Lynching And Vigilantism- 'These Kind Of Instances Cannot Occur', Says SC, Reserves Judgment [Read Order]

MEHAL Jain