Can't be selective of religion in Mob

Lynching Cases: Supreme Court

Date :

When it comes to mob lynching, one cannot be selective in picking up cases against any
religious community or caste, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it gave six weeks
to states and union territories to spell out action taken to curb instances of lynching and
hate crimes as laid down in a 2018 judgment.

Hearing a petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, which specified
nearly 50 hate crimes since the passing of the 2018 judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla
case, where state action was either absent or inadequate, a bench led by justice BR
Gavai noted that the list of cases did not include the brutal murder of a tailor, Kanhaiya
Lal, in Rajasthan’s Udaipur in 2022. The incident was linked to a hate crime as the two
Muslim killers walked into Lal’s shop and slit his throat as he had supported a social
media post profaning Prophet Muhammad.

“What about that tailor Kanhaiya Lal in Rajasthan who was lynched? Have you
highlighted it in your petition?” asked the bench that also comprised justices Aravind
Kumar and Sandeep Mehta. Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the petitioner,
admitted that the petition did not contain the incident and agreed to examine that
incident as well.

Senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Gujarat government, told the
court that the petition only talked about hate crimes against Muslims and this explained
why the Kanhaiya Lal incident was not mentioned.

“Let us not go by religion or caste,” the bench remarked. “It is only an allegation of mob
lynching and what action has been taken by states.” Pasha told the court his petition
highlighted a statistical fact that most hate crimes have been directed against Muslims.
However, the petition filed by him did not seek any specific relief against any particular
community but citizens in general.

Dave pointed out a statement made in the petition claiming there is a rise of hate
crimes against Muslims. “If he has only noticed mob lynching incidents of persons
belonging to a particular community, is there any harm in bringing it to our notice? You
tell us the incidents where Hindu persons have been lynched,” the court told Dave,

Citation : Latestlaws.com
“Why do you want to raise this issue when it is not being argued? You can put this in
your response.”

“You have taken all states into consideration. We want to be sure you are not selective.
You have to espouse a larger cause,” the court said. Pasha presented a chart to the
court showing how the 50 instances that took place in 14 states have not been
specifically addressed by them in their responses. Only two states – Madhya Pradesh
and Haryana – referred to the specific hate crime cases, denying occurrence of any mob
lynching or hate crime.

In the Madhya Pradesh case, two men were battered by a group of 10-12 persons in
Khandwa for allegedly carrying meat on the festive occasion of Eid. The court noted that
the state government failed to take any action against the persons involved in beating
up the two men. Instead, the duo were booked under the MP Cattle Preservation Act for
transporting cow meat.

Pulling up the state government, the court observed, “Why have you not registered the
FIR against the 10-12 persons who committed the battery? Whatever injuries they have
received, why has no FIR (first information report) been registered? It appears that you
are trying to save someone.” Advocate Nachiketa Joshi, appearing for Madhya Pradesh,
clarified that the incident was a scuffle between two groups of persons, and an FIR was
registered under the cattle preservation law.

“How can you invoke charges under the cow preservation act without receiving a
chemical report (on the meat sample)?” the court asked. Joshi submitted that the
chemical analysis is done later.

Pasha pointed out another instance from Haryana to highlight how states were in denial
mode on hate crimes. He referred to an incident in Nuh in Haryana, when a 22-year old
was battered to death by a group of persons on alleged suspicion of cattle smuggling in
January 2023. The state in its response filed in the top court described the death to be
the result of a road accident after the car driven by the victim was hit by a tempo.

“It is expected of states to at least respond and state what action has been taken in the
instances specified in the petition,” the court said. Granting six weeks to all states to file
responses explaining the action taken on the hate crimes highlighted by the petitioner,
the court adjourned the matter to July.

The Poonawala judgment took note of the string of violent incidents of mob lynching by
vigilante groups and held it to be unacceptable. The judgment delivered in a public
interest litigation proceeding said, “State has a sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens
from unruly elements and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with

Citation : Latestlaws.com
utmost sincerity and true commitment to address and curb such incidents which must
reflect in its actions and schemes.”

The decision proposed all states to appoint a nodal officer, meant to be an officer not
below the rank of superintendent of police, to prevent such instances. The court
directed automatic registration of an FIR under Section 153A (promoting enmity
between different groups) and directed states to prepare a compensation scheme for
victims of lynching and mob violence.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the
LatestLaws staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Source Link

Citation : Latestlaws.com