Case Briefing:
Case Name: TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA V. UNION OF INDIA Citation: 2018 INSC 617 (17 July 2018) Justices: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ajay M. Khanwilkar, Justice (Dr.) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
Question(s) Presented
The Supreme Court addressed two main questions:
- Whether acts of lynching, where private individuals take the law into their own hands, is legal within India’s justice administration system.
- If not, what steps need to be taken to curtail such activities?
Factual Background
The Petitioner, a social activist, filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. These petitions sought direction against violence by cow vigilantes and the removal of violent content from social media uploaded by such groups.
The Petition also challenged the constitutionality of specific immunity provisions within state laws: Section 12 of the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954; Section 13 of the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976; and Section 15 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964. These sections state that no legal proceeding will be instituted against any person for anything done “in good faith under the Act”. The Petitioners contended that these provisions were being misused to protect cow vigilantes from prosecution, even when they committed violent acts under the pretext of protecting cattle.
Decision and Holding
A Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the act of lynching is unlawful.
The Court ruled that no individual has the authority to enforce the law and punish fellow citizens by their own hands.
The Court issued guidelines to curb the menace of vigilantism. However, the Court did not address the constitutional validity of the immunity provisions in the statutes challenged.
Reasons for the Decision (Duty of the State)
The Court agreed with the submission of the Petitioner that no vigilante group can engage in lynching.
The Court held that it is the duty of the State to prevent crime and maintain public order. No one has the authority to take law enforcement into their own hands (¶15). Every individual has the right to report violations of the law to the police.
The Court affirmed that the accused persons are entitled to a fair and speedy trial under the constitutional and statutory provisions. The judiciary is tasked with adjudicating and determining the guilt or innocence of a person. Justice is administered within courtrooms, not on the streets (¶15).
The State is obligated to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights and liberties of every individual, regardless of their race, caste, class, or religion. The State is also responsible for promoting a secular, inclusive, and diverse societal framework.
Referring to Mohd. Haroon v. Union of India (2014 INSC 210), the Court noted that the responsibility to prevent the recurrence of communal violence lies on the shoulders of the state administration (¶16). Further, any officer tasked with the maintenance of law and order will face legal consequences if found negligent (¶16). The State should find the cause behind the communal violence, strengthen police infrastructure, and initiate peace-building measures to curb communal violence (¶16).
The Court held that the authorities are entrusted with upholding law and order and bear the primary duty to ensure that vigilantism, whether related to cow protection or any other cause, is prevented from occurring (¶17). Vigilantism undermines the legal and formal institutions of the State (¶18). The Court found that allegations of cattle smuggling or cruel treatment of animals will be prevented and prosecuted by law enforcement agencies (¶¶17, 18).
Vigilantism by mobs has to be prevented by the government and by society. Intolerance and polarisation, which is expressed through mobs, cannot be normalized (¶¶19-20). The freedom of speech and expression guarantees plurality of voices which is one of the essential foundations of liberal democracy (¶21). The State has an obligation to safeguard its citizens from vigilantism and lynching (¶¶19-21).
Guidelines Issued
The Supreme Court recommended that the Parliament should create a separate offence of lynching which should be adequately punished (¶43).
The Court issued the following guidelines aimed at preventing and punishing all incidents of lynching and mob violence (¶40):
Preventive Measures: These include the designation of senior police officers as Nodal Officers in each district to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching; identification of areas with a history of lynching and mob violence; regular meetings with local intelligence units to identify vigilantism tendencies and prohibit dissemination of offensive material; police patrolling in sensitive areas to discourage anti-social elements; broadcasting on various media platforms that lynching and mob violence will have serious legal consequences; steps to curb dissemination of irresponsible messages on social media platforms; and registration of FIRs under Section 153A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (promoting enmity between different groups) against individuals who post inciting content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching.
Remedial Measures: These require the immediate lodging of FIRs by the jurisdictional police station in case of lynching or mob violence; personal monitoring of investigations by Nodal Officers to ensure effective handling and timely charge-sheet filing; preparation of a Victim Compensation Scheme under section 357A of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, considering bodily and psychological injuries, loss of earnings, and legal and medical expenses; fast-track trials in designated courts with daily hearings and conclusion within six months; maximum sentencing upon conviction to set a stern example; and protection of witnesses and timely notice to victims or their next of kin about court proceedings.
Punitive Measures: These involve disciplinary action against police or district officials for negligence or misconduct in preventing, investigating, or facilitating the trial of mob violence and lynching cases; and a direction to take disciplinary action against officials who fail to prevent incidents despite prior knowledge or delay in apprehending culprits.
CASE: TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 754/2016
