New Delhi, Feb. 11 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday stated that it was not feasible for it to monitor incidents of mob lynching across the country while sitting in Delhi, as it disposed of a plea raising concerns over cow vigilante violence, particularly against Muslims.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran referred to the apex court's 2018 ruling, which had issued comprehensive guidelines for "preventive, remedial, and punitive measures" to tackle mob violence and cow vigilantism.
"However, sitting here in Delhi, we can't monitor the incidents occurring in different areas in different states of the country. In our view, such a micro-management by this court would not be feasible," the bench observed while dismissing the PIL.
The petition sought urgent directives for state governments to enforce the 2018 guidelines and take stringent action against incidents of lynching and mob attacks, particularly targeting Muslims by self-styled cow vigilantes. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was "gross non-compliance" with the top court's directives, leading to a rise in such attacks.
During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, pointed to the 2018 judgement, emphasising that the court had already laid down detailed guidelines. "Now, under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), mob lynching is a separate offence," Mehta informed the bench.
The petitioner's counsel, however, countered that a consistent pattern of inaction by authorities in various states warranted the Supreme Court's intervention.
"If the issue is already concluded, can we again reopen it by another writ?" the bench questioned, suggesting that the responsibility to implement the court's guidelines lay with the authorities.
Referring to the court's earlier ruling on property demolitions, the bench reiterated that victims of lynching or their families had the option to approach competent courts if they faced non-compliance from authorities. "When directions are issued by this court, the same are binding on all the authorities and courts in the country in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India," the bench stated.
The plea also sought a directive to ensure a minimum uniform compensation for victims of mob lynching. However, the court ruled that compensation should be case-specific. "As to what could be an adequate and reasonable compensation, it would differ from case to case," the bench said. Providing an example, the court observed that a victim with minor injuries could not receive the same compensation as someone with severe injuries. It further noted that granting a blanket relief in such cases may not be in the best interest of victims. The petitioner also challenged the validity of various notifications issued by states regarding cow vigilantism and sought their annulment. The Supreme Court, however, directed the aggrieved parties to take up such issues with respective jurisdictional high courts. "In each state, the position would be different," the bench remarked, questioning whether the court could generalise state-wise patterns of non-compliance. "Otherwise, sitting here in Delhi, can we monitor something which is happening in the northeast?" the bench asked.
In 2018, the Supreme Court had held that states had a primary duty to curb vigilantism, including cow vigilantism, and prevent mob violence. The court had issued directives to ensure law enforcement took immediate preventive and punitive measures in such cases.
Despite the 2018 ruling, the PIL underscored what it called an "alarming rise" in mob lynching incidents, particularly against Muslims, and sought the Supreme Court's urgent intervention to address the issue.
In July 2023, the Supreme Court had sought responses from the Centre and state governments regarding the petition.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.