Lynching: Parliament May Create A Special Law [Read Supreme Court Guidelines]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday recommended that the Parliament may create a special law against lynching, asserting that “fear of law and veneration for the command of law constitute the foundation of a civilised society”.The Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud directed, “Apart from the directions we have given hereinbefore and what we have expressed, 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 instil a sense of fear for law amongst the people who involve themselves in such kinds of activities.”On the State’s duty to maintain law and orderAt the outset, the Court asserted that it is the State’s duty to prevent any sort of mob vigilantism, observing, “The States have the onerous duty to see that no individual or any core group take law into their own hands. Every citizen has the right to intimate the police about the infraction of law……There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities which are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be it cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does not take place.”On growing mob vigilantism The Court made some stern observations on the growing mob vigilantism and asserted that such 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”. “Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself. We may say without any fear of contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day. Such vigilantism, be it for whatever purpose or borne out of whatever cause, has the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the State and altering the constitutional order,” the Court observed.It, therefore, highlighted the need for State intervention in protecting its citizens from “unruly elements and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with utmost sincerity and true commitment to address and curb such incidents which must reflect in its actions and schemes”.Reference to American authoritiesThe Court also referred to rulings by the American Courts which have dealt with lynching, which at one point of time, was rampant in the American society. The Court noted that the American Courts had deplored this menace and had dealt it with iron hands so as to eradicate the same.It then observed, “Thus, the decisions of this Court, as well as the authorities from other jurisdictions, clearly show that every citizen has to abide by the law and the law never confers the power on a citizen to become the law unto himself or take law into his hands. The idea is absolutely despicable, the thought is utterly detestable and the action is obnoxious and completely hellish. It is nauseatingly perverse.”On rising intolerance The Bench highlighted the importance of plurality and tolerance as the building blocks of a truly free and democratic society and the need for preserving the same. It explained, “It must be emphatically stated that a dynamic contemporary constitutional democracy imbibes the essential feature of accommodating pluralism in thought and approach so as to preserve cohesiveness and unity. Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic mindset sows the seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and expression. Hence, tolerance has to be fostered and practised and not allowed to be diluted in any manner.”The Court then issued the following directives and listed the matter on 20 August for further directions:A.Preventive Measures(i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal Officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by one of the DSP rank officers in the district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They shall constitute a special task force so as to procure intelligence reports about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.(ii) The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say, in the last five years. The process of identification should be done within a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment, as such time period is sufficient to get the task done in today's fast world of data collection.(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall...

Lynching: Parliament May Create A Special Law [Read Supreme Court Guidelines]

Apoorva Mandhani

Tags