Law Maker

Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India

Supreme Court of India, 17 July 2018, 3 judges

Holding that the State must prevent mob violence and lynching, the Court issued preventive, remedial and punitive guidelines to the Central and State Governments and recommended that Parliament create a separate offence of lynching.

Facts

The petitioner, a social activist, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking action against cow protection groups indulging in violence, removal of violent content they posted on social media, and a declaration that certain provisions of the Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka animal protection statutes were unconstitutional. Connected petitions raised the same grievance about cow vigilantism, lynching and targeted mob violence against persons and property. Several States filed affidavits on steps taken, and counsel for the petitioners proposed preventive, remedial and punitive measures to be laid down as guidelines. The Court did not examine individual incidents.

Questions before the Court

  1. What is the duty of the State and of the Court under the Constitution in dealing with lynching and mob violence by self-appointed protectors of the law?
  2. What preventive, remedial and punitive measures should be directed to curb lynching and mob vigilantism?

What the Court held

  • No individual or mob may take the law into its own hands; vigilantism of any kind is unlawful, and the law enforcement agencies alone must survey, prevent and prosecute. The State has a duty to protect citizens from lynching and mob violence.
  • Preventive measures: a Nodal Officer of at least Superintendent of Police rank in each district, identification of affected areas, regular review meetings, dispersal of mobs under Section 129 CrPC, patrolling, publicity, and FIRs under Section 153A IPC against those spreading inciting messages.
  • Remedial measures: immediate FIRs, investigation monitored by the Nodal Officer, a lynching victim compensation scheme under Section 357A CrPC with interim relief, trial by designated or fast track courts preferably within six months, witness protection, victims' participation and free legal aid.
  • Punitive measures: failure of police or district officials to comply is deliberate negligence or misconduct warranting action, including disciplinary action following Arumugam Servai. Compliance was required within four weeks, and Parliament was recommended to create a separate offence of lynching.

Why it matters

The judgment treats lynching and mob vigilantism as an affront to the rule of law and lays down binding directions to the Central and State Governments across prevention, remedy and punishment, including district Nodal Officers, a victim compensation scheme, fast track trials and accountability of officials. It also recommends that Parliament enact a special offence of lynching.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself. We may say without any fear of contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day.”
Dipak Misra, CJIPage 18 of the judgment
“There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities which are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be it cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does not take place.”
Dipak Misra, CJIPage 17 of the judgment
“Apart from the directions we have given hereinbefore and what we have expressed, we think it appropriate to recommend to the legislature, that is, the Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. We have said so as a special law in this field would instill a sense of fear for law amongst the people who involve themselves in such kinds of activities.”
Dipak Misra, CJIPage 44 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India and others
Case
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016, with Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 764 and 768 of 2016, 732 of 2017 and Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 122 of 2017
Decided
17 July 2018
Bench
Dipak Misra (CJI), A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment delivered by Dipak Misra, CJI.

Questions on this case

3 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.