Supreme Court Seeks States' Responses On Steps Taken In Mob Lynching Cases

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 16) directed the States, which have not yet responded to the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) regarding the increase in mob lynching incidents, to file detailed affidavits specifying the steps taken by them in respect the mob-lynching incidents mentioned in the PIL.The petitioner has added all States as respondents, out of which only MP and Haryana filed their responses."Most of the States have not filed their Affidavits. It was expected of the States to at least respond to what action has been taken in such cases. We, therefore, grant six weeks time to all the states who have not yet filed replies to file their Counter, and also detail steps taken by them in such cases," ordered the Bench Comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Sandeep Mehta.Adv. Nizam Pasha appeared for NFIW and concentrated his arguments based on the affidavits submitted by the States of MP and Haryana. His major contention revolved around the fact that how the incidents of mob lynching/violence were given the colour of the normal accident or fight to override the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court in the Tehseen Poonawalla case. In Tehseen Poonawalla's judgment, the top court had issued comprehensive guidelines to the union and state governments regarding the prevention of lynching and mob violence. Starting over with the State of Madhya Pradesh affidavit, Pasha tried to show how the Supreme Court's Judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla's case was not followed by the States. Pasha read some part of the State of MPs affidavit to show how an act of mob lynching was being given the color of a normal fight. He narrated a fact where a scuffle took place amongst a few individuals over felling down meat from polythene. Highlighting the contradiction in the media and police reports based on the affidavit, Pasha said news reports are highlighting the incident as mob lynching. But, the inspector wrote to the SP saying that 10 -12 persons committed battery on the persons transporting meat. Pasha then stated that no FIRs were registered against such persons for causing injury to the two persons who were assaulted for carrying the meat. Justice BR Gavai intervened and asked the State's Counsel “Why are the FIRs not being registered against 10-12 persons?” Justice Gavai asserted that if an injury is caused to the persons, then an FIR should be registered against the accused persons.Advocate Nachiketa Josi, for the State of MP, informed the court that the FIRs were registered under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. Justice Sandeep Mehta then questioned the State's Counsel about “How can an FIR be registered under the Cow Slaughter Act without there being any chemical report?” The counsel responded stating that the FIR is registered if the accused is found with meat on the spot. She asserted that the material may be sent for chemical analysis thereafter. Continuing with his submissions, Pasha then referred to Haryana's Affidavit and highlighted how the incident of mob violence and lynching is being showcased as a normal accident. Pasha argued that if the states deny mob lynching by employing such tactics then guidelines framed in the Poonawalla Judgment would be of no use. While relying on the Poonawalla's Judgment, Pasha asserted that the states have not complied with the guidelines framed in the Poonawalla's case, as there was no response from the State's end to show what actions being taken by them related to the specific incidents mentioned in the Petition. After noting that most of the states have not filed affidavits (except the States of MP and Haryana) specifying the steps taken on the mob lynching incidents mentioned in the petition, the court granted six weeks to the states to give a detailed response on what steps were taken on the incidents of mob lynching mentioned in the Writ Petition. Soon after this, Justice Aravind Kumar enquired Pasha whether the incident of the murder of tailor Kanhaiya Kumar in Udaipur was mentioned in the Petition. Not sure about the fact of mentioning Kanhaiya Kumar's incident in the petition, Pasha assured the court that the incident would be mentioned in the petition if not mentioned.“You have to take all the incidents in the petition, we want to be sure that you're not selective”, Justice Aravind Kumar said to Pasha. Pasha assured the court that he is not selective in highlighting only certain incidents but would mention the incident of Kanhaiya Kumar in the petition too.After hearing that Kanhaiya Kumar's mob lynching incident is not mentioned by Pasha in the Petition, Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave (for the State of Gujarat) alleged the petition to be religiously biased stating that the petition concerned only Muslims and not other communities. To which, Justice Sandeep Mehta intervened and said the matter should not be looked at as per caste and religion but as a whole.“That...

Supreme Court Seeks States' Responses On Steps Taken In Mob Lynching Cases

Yash Mittal

Tags