Breaking| Can't Monitor Incidents In Different States Sitting in Delhi: SC Closes NFIW's Plea Against Alleged Mob Lynching Cases

The Supreme Court today disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), which is affiliated to the CPI, which raised concerns over the alleged increasing incidents of mob lynching and violence, particularly by cow vigilantes.

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran observed that while its earlier ruling in Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India is binding on all authorities, the Court cannot engage in micro-monitoring of such incidents across the country.

During the hearing today, Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing NFIW, argued that compliance with the Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines was lacking and that private individuals were being empowered for cow protection through government notifications, which he claimed was the root cause of the issue. He highlighted instances where FIRs were filed against victims rather than perpetrators.

Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, contended that mob lynching had been recognized as a distinct offense under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) and that law and state machinery should handle individual cases. "So far as the first part, it is binding on all. If there is a violation, the law will take its own course. Under BNSS, mob lynching is a separate offense. People keep filing different IAs. Only Tehseen Poonawalla is required to be complied," the SG submitted.

He also pointed out that if state governments had issued notifications granting powers to private individuals, the same should be challenged before the respective High Courts. "Even if states have conferred such powers, it can be challenged before High Courts," the SG argued.

Taking note of the submissions, the Bench, in its order, reiterated that its directions in Tehseen Poonawalla were binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, and any non-compliance could be challenged by the aggrieved persons through appropriate legal remedies.

The Court also refused to issue a directive for uniform compensation for victims of mob lynching, stating that compensation must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Further, the Court held that challenges to the validity of 13 state enactments on the issue should be raised before the respective jurisdictional High Courts.

"Again, if there is non-compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla, the aggrieved person has a remedy in law. Sitting in Delhi, we can't monitor incidents in different areas in different states of the country. Such micromanagement would not be feasible. If any other person is aggrieved, they can approach in accordance with the law. Again, the third prayer is with respect to the direction to authorities to provide a minimum uniform amount as compensation for injuries, etc., costs to victims on account of mob lynching. Again, what would be adequate compensation would differ. No uniform direction can be issued to authorities. It would be taking away discretion for determining compensation. We find that a petition seeking such omnibus reliefs would neither be in the interest of victims. Insofar as a challenge to the validity of 13 enactments of different states...it will be appropriate that persons who are aggrieved approach jurisdictional High Courts to challenge the vires of the notifications. Please note that affidavits show gross non-compliance. In the face of this bald denial. Matter disposed of," the Bench said.

While Pasha pointed out alleged non-compliance by states, the Court maintained that the proper legal course was already available, leading to the disposal of the PIL.

Previous Proceeding

Earlier, the Court had issued a warning to five States including Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Bihar, over their failure to file counter-affidavits in the matter.

It is to be noted that on April 16, 2024, the Apex Court had asked the Counsel for Petitioner not to be selective of any religion, caste and community while pointing out incidents of mob lynching. The Court had specifically asked the Petitioner whether it has highlighted the Udaipur Kanhaiya Lal murder case in the petition. Kanhaiya Lal a tailor in Udaipur of Rajasthan was beheaded, allegedly for a social media post in support of Nupur Sharma who had made alleged blasphemous remarks. The act was captured on video by the assailants, who also published a video issuing a threat to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.