Topic- Punishment for Mob-Lynching New Provision
Abstract-
This research paper will explore the origins and development of mob lynching in India across its historical context. It examines the various fallouts from mob lynching, such as the deterioration of public confidence in the justice system and the escalation of intergroup hostilities. The lack of sufficient measures highlights the necessity of a specific provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) to specifically tackle and discourage mob lynching.
This essay will also go into the unique legislation that has been passed by a number of states, including Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Manipur, to address mob violence within their borders. These state statutes offer important guidance and examples for creating a strong federal provision. This paper aims to investigate the obstacles that India has in putting into practice effective anti-lynching policies, encompassing concerns related to enforcement and socio-political resistance.
An analysis of landmark rulings will offer a court's viewpoint on mob lynching and the necessity of legislative changes. In summary, this clause makes the case for the need for extensive and strict BNS measures to prevent mob lynching, uphold justice, and strengthen the rule of law. The research intends to contribute to the conversation on law reform and the preservation of human rights in India through detailed analysis and case studies.
Keywords- Mob-Lynching, Historical Context, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Anti-Lynching Policies, Landmark Rulings, Legislative Changes
Research Paper-
Introduction of Mob Lynching-
Lynching is a national offense in our nation. It is not the monster of the hour, it is not the uncontrollably irrational explosion of rage, nor is it the horrifying violence of a deranged crowd. Social justice is a cancer; the actions of the mob control you.
Lynching is the term used to describe the execution of an individual by a large group of people, usually by hanging the victim. Captain William Lynch, a self-appointed judge from Virginia in the eighteenth century, is the source of the phrase "lynching." In the past, Captain Lynch executed individuals by hanging them without holding a formal trial. The 'Lynch's Law' was the name given to this system of capital punishment. Later, lynching refers to the act of hanging someone without holding a formal trial.
The term "mob Lynching" describes acts of violence committed against an individual with the intention of causing harm by an unruly group of people. Mob lynchings typically occur when a hysterical group of people believe someone is guilty of a crime for which a trial has not yet taken place. The crowd may torture and torment the accused under the guise of enforcing justice for the victim and punishing the culprit. However, this is only permitted if it is presumed that the accused has committed an offense, in which case the mob may lynch the offender to death or cause great harm.
A group of people who take the law into their own hands to punish a suspected culprit commit the horrific crime of mob lynching. Human rights, societal cohesion, and the maintenance of law and order were all seriously threatened by this heinous act.
Historical Background of Mob Lynching in India-
In India, mob violence is not a recent development. Without pausing to consider the real issue that piques their interest, mobs frequently join in on acts of violence in a matter of seconds. Mob psychology almost always comes together in a similar way, either by beating or vandalizing innocent people, which ends in death.
First Report of Mob- Violence in Gujarat in 1714-
The first known instance of mob violence occurred during the "Holi Riot" in Gujarat in 1714, which was partially caused by a dispute over cows. Homes and markets were set on fire by the ferocious crowd. Numerous Muslims and Hindus perished during this escalating incident. Even after the large number of deaths, the violence cycle persisted for a few days, wreaking havoc on the Ahmadabad neighborhood.
The riots and violence involving cows used to happen every year. The Sikh Kukas, also known as Namdharis, were fighting for the rights of cows at the time of Punjab's British annexation. According to Barbara and Thomas Metcalf (2012[4], Sikhs were fighting for cow protection in the 1860s, and these ideas transferred to Hindu reform organizations.
Mau of U.P. Mob Violence in 1806-
Following rioting in the eastern Uttar Pradesh town of Mau in 1806 (John McLane, 2015), Sadar Nizamat Adawlat forbade cow sacrifices in 1808.
The Muslim interpretation of the prohibition on sacrifice, which does not forbid the slaughter of cattle, emerged in the 1860s. Hindus became displeased with this (McLane, 2015)[9]. Mau, where Muslims make up half the population, rejected the Hindu view. It all began when a Muslim local zamindar (landowner) expressed interest in offering an animal sacrifice at his daughter's wedding. A local group of Hindus immediately came together to oppose the same.
In 1893, two thousand Hindu men from the Ghazipur area and nearly four thousand men from the Ballia district met in Mau with the intention of ending the sacrifice. In a Mau bazaar, the Hindus, who are devoted to defending cows, began attacking the Muslims and pillaging their stores. Locals estimated 200 deaths during the riots, whereas British officials estimated about seven Muslims died.
Mob-Violence in beginning of 20th Century-
Beginning in 1909, Muslims in Calcutta staged a public cow sacrifice, sparking intense protests and rioting at the start of the 20th century. Similar riots occurred in 1912 in Faizabad after a Maulvi made fun of a Hindu group for having a cow, and in 1911 in Muzaffarpur when Hindus threatened to vandalise a mosque in reprisal for Muslims slaughtering cows.
Two riots that broke out in Patna during the Muslim holiday of Eid-ul-Adha in 1916 and 1917 led to looting, rioting, and murders in important Bihar cities. During the Muslim Id celebration, cow slaughter was outlawed by the British. According to the record, on the day of Id, Hindu mobs numbering 25,000 attacked Muslims, resulting in numerous incidents of violence. Comparably, from 1917 to 1928, several anti-cow slaughter and anti-cow protection riots occurred in India.
Hundred Riots and 450 Deaths in Bengal-
Remarkably, Bengal was the scene of over 100 riots in the 1920s, with 450 reported killed and 5,000 injured. According to Nitish Sengupta (2011), the two main reasons of mob violence during Eid-ul-Adha were Muslims slaughtering cows in the open and Hindus blasting music during Durga Puja processions that passed by mosques.
After Independence-
Following the 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent into Pakistan and India, riots over the slaughter of cows occurred in India. Within the four-year period between 1948 and 1951, riots in Azamgarh, Akola, Pilbhit, Katni, Nagpur, Aligarh, Dhubri, Delhi, and Calcutta were caused solely by cow slaughter (Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, 1968).
Between the 1950s and 1960s, cow slaughter persisted in many parts of India, which led to riots (Govind Sadashiv Ghurye, 1968). According to Ian Copland et al. (2013), the practice of cow sacrifice rituals in Islamic festivals came to an end after 1947.
Nonetheless, the riots reappeared in the 1960s as a new generation of Muslims reached adolescence, unaware of the religious violence of the 1940s, and started to demand their rights.
Hindu Monks to Parliament-
Hindu sadhus, or monks, gathered in Delhi to demonstrate against the slaughter of cows. They also started a campaign to protect cows and put in a request for a ban. During the lengthy process of getting to the legislature, some people were upset and began protesting (Indrani Jagjivan Ram, 2010).
The percentage of mob violence resulting in public disruption due to the lynching of primarily innocent individuals has substantially increased from 5% to over 20% between January 2011 and June 2017.
Types of Mob Lynching-
Communal Based-
Historically, caste violence against Dalits has been committed under many pretexts, including mob lynching. Nevertheless, these crimes are typically underreported or disregarded by the investigating authorities.
Such atrocities are encouraged by the savage caste system that is ingrained in the Vedic literatures.
Witchcraft-
The term "witchcraft" frequently refers to the practice of accusing people—usually women—of engaging in witchcraft or sorcery, which can result in a mob's persecution and occasionally violent attacks. These charges, which are frequently followed by violent lynching without any court hearings or supporting documentation, can be motivated by superstition, personal grudges, or societal prejudices.
Honor Killing-
The term "honor killing" describes the killing of a family member—typically by a relative—because the victim is thought to have brought disgrace or dishonor to the family. This dishonor is frequently associated with declining an arranged marriage, engaging in relationships that the family disapproves of, or acting in ways that go against social or cultural norms.
When mob lynching and honor killing collide, it usually involves a number of family members or community members who decide to punish the victim as a group because they feel that they have been wronged. To regain their honor, these groups might organize as a mob and carry out the murder. In these situations, the mob's acts are illegal and subject to legal consequences, but they are frequently justified within their cultural or societal framework.
Bovine-related Mob Lynching-
The term "bovine-related mob lynching" describes violent crimes committed by mobs against someone who are suspected of engaging in activities related to cows, such as cow slaughter, beef consumption, or cattle theft. The Hindu community regards cows as sacred in many places, particularly India, and any harm or death to them can elicit intense emotional responses.
Suspicion of Child Lifting-
When someone is subjected to a violent attack by a group of people who suspect them of trying to kidnap a child, this is known as suspicion of child lifting in mob lynching. Rumors and false facts frequently feed this idea, which breeds fear and mob justice. Usually, the accused is singled out without any hard proof or due process, which leads to serious harm or even death.
Theft Cases-
In mob lynching incidents involving theft, a group of people take it upon themselves to punish an individual they believe to be a theft suspect.
Related Points-
Article 21 of the Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and human dignity are all gravely violated when a mob lynch occurs.
Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantee the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination, are violated by such instances.
However, as it is not yet included in the Indian Penal Code, it is simply referred to as murder because it is not mentioned in any national legislation.
Consequences of Mob Lynching-
Disrupts Unity in Diversity-
India claims to be the nation where castes, faiths, and cultures can coexist peacefully, living up to its motto of "unity in diversity." Mob lynching incidents demonstrate a lack of diversity in togetherness. This demonstrates a lack of morality among all involved, including those who gave these crowds support.
Fear Environment-
Mob lynching is bad for all of humanity, not just one specific faith or group of people. Every religion's innocent individuals are being attacked by the rabble. The day the Supreme Court was providing directives to the governments was also the day that a mob in Jharkhand's Pakur district assaulted, kicked, and otherwise horribly mistreated Swami Agnivesh, a social activist and scholar of the Arya Samaj.
India is the largest democracy in the world, with a strong belief in the judiciary and courts. However, in modern times, the mob has taken on the role of police and court, discovering its own truth and punishing innocent people as it sees fit. Furthermore, those who support mob lynchings are aware that since a mob cannot be identified, apprehended, prosecuted, or found guilty, murder and car intimidation continue unchecked.
Loss of Human Life-
Another well-known saying is, "Justice hurried, justice buried." According to some, life is a "gift from god" that should be treated carefully. Because mob lynching’s are based on rumors, they pose a threat to this priceless gift.
Infringes Rule of Law-
The protection of life and personal liberty of an individual" is what Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees. Individuals' rights are violated, and the rule of law and justice are compromised by mob lynching incidents. Furthermore, these actions circumvent the legal presumption of "innocent until proven guilty.
Related Steps taken regarding Mob-Lynching-
Prevention Measures-
July 2017, Supreme Court in the Case of Tahseen S. Poonawala vs. Union of India
The Supreme Court of India, presided over by former Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, condemned cow vigilantism as a social scourge and emphasized the state's responsibility to stop such acts. The court offered guidelines, punitive measures, and remedies against cow vigilantism, emphasizing that law enforcement, not private citizens, should administer punishment.
This judgment addressed a significant societal issue that has an impact on national integrity. It noted that killing by private individuals for the purpose of protecting cows breaches fundamental rights and harms India's reputation as a democratic nation. The court emphasized that due process must be followed when imposing punishment, not just random people in positions of power.
Preventive measures included in the verdict included police patrols in critical areas, a special task force, and intelligence reports. The court suggested making mob lynching a specific crime, but it did not provide a sufficient definition of the crime or consider the constitutionality of some states' immunity laws for cow vigilantes.
Notwithstanding these drawbacks, it is anticipated that the judgment's recommendations, safeguards, and corrective efforts will lessen cow vigilantism. The court emphasized the value of respecting the rule of law and safeguarding minority rights by emphasizing state accountability and the idea of unity in diversity. This ruling is a big step in the right direction for how India will address cow vigilantism.
Designated Fast Track Courts-
Theses fast track courts were directed to be set up by state in every district to exclusively deal with the cases of mob-lynching.
Special Task Force-
The Court mooted the setting up of a special task force with objective of procuring intelligence reports about the people involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statement and fake news which could lead to mo lynchings.
Victim Compensation Schemes-
Additionally, instructions were given on how to establish victim compensation programs for victims' relief and rehabilitation.
In July 2019, the Supreme Court, a year later, sent notices to the Center and multiple states requesting them to produce compliance reports and present the steps they had taken to execute the measures.
Only three states currently have legislation prohibiting mob lynching: Rajasthan, West Bengal, and Manipur.
The Prevention of Mob Violence and Mob Lynching Bill, 2021 was just passed by the Jharkhand Assembly.
Laws that dealt with Mob-Lynching-
IN IPC-
When it comes to mob lynching, the following sections of the IPC can be used against the perpetrators:
When a mob lynching results in death or serious harm, Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 323 (voluntary causing hurt) may be used.
The people who incite or provoke communal tensions can be held accountable under Sections 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, caste, place of birth, etc.) and 295A (Defining a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class).
Section 34: Act performed by multiple individuals in support of a shared goal; Section 142: Illegal Assembly; Section 143: Penalties; Section 144: Participating in Illegal Assembly while carrying a deadly weapon; Section 146: Rioting; Section 147: Penalties for Rioting; Section 148: Rioting while carrying a deadly weapon; and Section 149: All members of Illegal Assembly are guilty of offenses committed in pursuit of a common purpose.
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE –
In order to preserve law and order, the police are required to take preventive action under Sections 149 (Police to prevent cognizable offences), 150 (Information of design to commit cognizable offences), and 154 (Arrest to prevent the commission of cognizable offences) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPc). The power of a police officer to conduct an investigation in cases of cognizable offenses is also provided by Section 154 of the CrPc.
Why do we need Special Provision in BNS regarding Mob-Lynching?
Mob lynching is simply the extrajudicial killing of individuals on the basis of their race, caste, community, language, etc. The new law that applies to this offense is S-103(2), BNS, 2023. Such an infraction was not recognized in the IPC; rather, those involved in such a conduct were charged under several sections of the IPC, 1860, as well as sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 435, and 427 of the old criminal code.
People have also been known to kill of this kind when they perceive a delay in justice, leading them to take matters into their own hands.
This analysis aims to comprehend how the law works to address the crime of mob lynching by examining the provisions of prior legislation and the BNS, 2023, which paves the way for simpler accused booking. The conduct is unlawful because a citizen cannot use the law to execute someone based just on their sociological or demographic identity or to punish someone for a crime they may have committed. A mob lynching is defined by the BNS, 2023 in S-103(2) as a murder perpetrated by five or more people working together for the above mentioned reasons. If any of the group members perform such an act, they will all face the same penalties.
Because they are outnumbered, the victims' community members are likewise terrified by the act of mob lynching. The risky outcome would be that, due to their numerical disadvantage, the mob might likewise experience that outcome. The right to life and personal liberty of the victim are violated by mob lynching, as stated in Article 21 and other articles of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Supreme Court has declared the right to life to be a basic right in a number of instances involving a wide range of circumstances. Any act that infringes against this right is prohibited by law and is against the fundamental values of the legal system. This would be equivalent to denying the victim the protection of due process as guaranteed by our country's legal system.
These kinds of attacks have primarily targeted marginalized people. A mentally impaired person or an impoverished family has not been spared from this. The inability to obtain justice and the lack of support from society has made it easier to perpetrate crimes. Such attacks are directed towards SC/ST communities. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and this case combine to make it more difficult to break the law by committing an offense.
Mob lynchings in cases of child abuse have also been documented. A girl child's mother had called out to stop her daughter from being mistreated. As a result of the sincere efforts of those who stepped out to save the girl, the abuser was also severely beaten. The abuser in this scenario has to be punished, but in the heat of the moment, he might have been slain by someone in the crowd. People in good faith would inadvertently end up with police tickets.
The IPC, 1860 defines dacoity under Section 391. Violent circumstances would start to happen as soon as someone confronts a dacoit. In addition to injuring one another, killings can eventually occur from this. A case like this would be filed under section 392 of the IPC, 1860, not under dacoity, as it exclusively pertains to robbery. The dacoits would each be charged with murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, albeit some would avoid the harsh punishment by not participating in the murderous act.
Villagers were accused of killing a child, and they were attacking this guy. At the villagers' request, the police had to step in and save the accused killer from being lynched by the crowd. He was questioned again and the inquiry was continued because the police had come on time. Such occurrences would foster a mob mentality and encourage people to engage in illegal activity.
Reasons for Mob-Lynching-
Limited Awareness and Lack of Education
Misguided Youth and Unemployment
Inefficient Investigation
Communal and Caste Biases
Loss of Trust and Fear
Some Mob-Lynching Cases and Instances-
Pehlu Khan Lynching (2017) –
A dairy farmer named Pehlu Khan, 55, and his son had bought cows at a livestock show in Alwar, Rajasthan. Pehlu Khan passed away from his wounds in a hospital after being assaulted by cow vigilantes as they were moving animals. Due to a deficiency in the police investigation and a lack of evidence, the Sessions Court exonerated the accused in August 2019. People begin to distrust law enforcement organizations as a result of these kinds of choices.
G. Krishnaiah (IAS Officer) Lynching Case-
Gopalganj District Magistrate G. Krishnaiah was dragged out of his car on December 5, 1994, by a 5,000-strong mob that raced at his car. After striking him and injuring him several times, the crowd fired a round into his head.
Jhankar Saikia Mob Lynching Case-
On June 25, 2013, in the Assamese town of Diphu, in the Karbi Anglong District, an auto rickshaw driver demanded Rs. 30 from Jhankar Saikia, a student at Diphu College, and his father, Haren Saikia, claiming that the normal fare was only Rs. 20. This incident is known as the Jhankar Saikia mob Lynching case. This resulted in a mob attacking both of them. Local eyewitnesses claimed that although police officers were there during the incident, they made no attempt to disperse the crowd.
Due to his wounds, Jhankar passed away in the medical facility. The trial started in 2018 and ended with 12 of the 19 individuals against whom charges were brought being found guilty and given life sentences, 2 having absconded, 1 being tried in juvenile court, and 4 being found not guilty.
Dr. Pankaj Narang Mob Lynching Case-
This incident happened shortly after India's cricket match victory over Bangladesh in the World T20. Dr. Narang left his house and began playing cricket in their courtyard with his son, nephew, and brother-in-law. When his son chased the ball after it flew outside their courtyard, trouble started. Dr. Narang witnessed Nasir and a juvenile approaching them on a bike, as well as his kid making a tight escape. He lifted his hand to halt the rider, which sparked a heated dispute between them both.
Dr. Narang allegedly gave the motorcyclist a slap and took the motorcycle's keys, according to the police. They both left the area after threatening to do terrible things to Dr. Narang. The police line was engaged when Dr. Narang attempted to reach the Police Control Room. He subsequently made the decision to visit the district center of Janakpuri.
When he returned home, Nasir had brought over a dozen others with him, including women and children, and they were carrying blunt items like rods and cricket bats. They had already begun throwing stones at his residence. As they continued to pummel Dr. Narang, he passed out from their attack. A CCTV camera outside a nearby hospital recorded some of the incident, showing Mesar, the Khan Brothers' mother, encouraging the crowd to attack Dr. Narang. When the police arrived at the scene, the accused had already left after other people reported the incident to them. Before being moved to the operating room, Dr. Narang suffered several injuries, a heart attack, and his death.
Junaid Lynching Case-
In 2017, a crowd attacked four young Muslim boys named Junaid, Hasim, Moin, and Mausim as they were riding the third coach of a train headed for Mathura after they had finished their Eid shopping. After a few other passengers urged them to get up from their seats, they began mistreating and abusing the youngsters. At Faridabad, the four of them made the decision to get off the train. But due of the bustle at the train station, they were unable to exit the coach. When Junaid attempted to interfere, one of the attackers pulled out a knife and stabbed him, making the situation worse. Junaid was thrown from the train when it stopped at the Asaoti Railway Station. When he was taken to the hospital, he was pronounced dead.
Several States have made a special law for curbing mob in its states like Manipur, West Bengal, and Rajasthan-
IN MANIPUR- It became the first state to pass an extraordinary law against lynching in 2018.
The Manipur law, which establishes special courts, higher punishments, and a nodal commissioner to oversee such offenses in every State, largely adheres to the Supreme Court's directives.
Its groundbreaking relevance comes from the fact that it raises important new issues about hate violence in India and outlines the steps that the Union and other governments must take to effectively address hate crimes.
Its definition of lynching is broad and includes a wide range of hate acts. These are defined as "any act or series of violent acts or aiding, abetting such act/acts thereof, whether planned or spontaneous, by a mob on the grounds of ethnicity, political affiliation, language, place of birth, religion, race, caste, sex, or any other related grounds."
The law's most significant and admirable contribution is that it is the first in the nation to address the rights and protection of marginalized communities, and it establishes a new offense of public officials failing to perform their duties.
It states that "any police officer directly in charge of maintaining law and order in an area, omits to exercise lawful authority vested in them under the law, without reasonable cause, and thereby fails to prevent lynching shall be guilty of dereliction of duty" and faces "a punishment of one year, which may extend to three years, and with fine that may extend to fifty thousand rupees."
The fact that it eliminates the defense that would otherwise be available to public servants accused of whatever crime they may have committed while carrying out their official duties is as shocking.
Currently, a court cannot find a case involving such an offense unless the State government has given its prior approval. The Manipur law eliminates the need for prior approval for filing a criminal complaint against public servants who neglect to take appropriate action to stop hate crimes like lynching.
It eliminates the need for governmental approval before taking action in response to a hate crime.
Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with inciting hatred toward someone based on their race, religion, language, or any other factor, ought to apply to all hate crimes committed today. However, in order to register this offense, the State government must give prior authorization, and most governments abuse this authority to protect hate crime offenders who support the ruling elite both politically and intellectually. This obligation is removed by the Manipur law, which would greatly increase the effectiveness and objectivity of responding to hate crimes.
It lies out unequivocally that the State government must ensure for the protection of witnesses and victims from all forms of violence, threats of violence, coercion, and intimidation.
It also mandates that state officials stop creating a hostile environment for community members who have been lynched. This includes social and economic boycotts, dehumanizing treatment by keeping them from accessing public services like transportation, health care, and education, as well as threats and evictions.
The law's final significant addition requires the state to create a plan for death compensation, rehabilitation in the event that victims are displaced, and relief camps.
IN WEST BENGAL-
West Bengal and Rajasthan have created their own laws to prevent mob lynching in response to this.
The West Bengal law is more severe because it stipulates that lynching someone to death carries a penalty of up to ₹5 lakhs in addition to the death penalty or life in jail.
Such a noble law, if adopted by the Union and other State governments, may guarantee that hate crimes are significantly reduced, that public servants honor their constitutional obligations to victims, and that victims' families and communities receive justice and protection.
In West Bengal Mob-Lynching Law passed in 2019. The bill called for strict steps to deter and penalize people who commit these kinds of crimes. The law permitted the death penalty in situations where a victim of mob violence has died. The Bill also suggested designating nodal officers to oversee and plan the efforts to stop lynchings.
According to the bill, those who assault and cause harm to another person could be sentenced to three years or perhaps life in prison. In order to give financial support to the families of lynching victims, the measure also made it possible to frame the West Bengal Lynching Compensation Scheme.
IN RAJASTHAN-
The law regarding Mob-Lynching was passed on 2019. Penalties for creating an unfriendly atmosphere: Anyone found guilty of creating or maintaining a hostile environment for an individual or group of individual’s faces up to five years in prison and a fine of up to one lakhs rupees. The bill stipulates that jail sentences of up to 10 years and fines ranging from ₹25,000 to ₹3 lakhs are possible for mob assault offenses that cause grave damage to the victim. For victims who only sustain minor injuries, the maximum penalty is seven years in prison and a fine of up to ₹1 lakhs. The measure aims to penalize the offender as if he had committed the lynching offense if he had planned a conspiracy to lynch someone or aided, abetted, or attempted to conduct such an offense. The bill gives the state police chief the authority to designate a state coordinator for the position of Inspector General of Police in order to stop lynching instances.
The bill also contains a number of other lynching-related offenses, including spreading derogatory materials, inciting a hostile environment, and impeding the legal system. These offenses would all carry sentences of three to five years in prison. The bill also mandates that the state government provide victims' compensation in accordance with the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme.
Additionally, it requires the state government to take the required actions to help victims of mob lynching who were uprooted from their homes.
Landmark Judgment-
Tahseen S. Poonawala vs. Union of India (2018)-
Facts:
Tehseen Poonawalla, a disturbed social activist, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution following a recent spate of incidents of mob lynching. They asked the court to order the federal government and certain state governments to take action against cow vigilantes. The petitioners expressed the court's worry about matters pertaining to the continued existence of mankind in the modern world, specifically the growth in cow vigilantism—a phenomenon in which individuals beat those they believe to be beef consumers. Two notable examples include the lynching of Pehlu Khan in Alwar on suspicion of smuggling a cow and the hanging of two men in Jharkhand by cow vigilantes. Section 13 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 states, "that no suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings shall be instituted against any person for anything which is in good faith or intended to be done under this Act or the rules made there under." The petitioners contested these provisions, which forbid taking legal action against individuals for actions taken in "good faith" under the law.
The Supreme Court highlighted that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Court also invoked that the doctrine of “Protective Discrimination” under Article 14 &15 emphasizing that no citizen especially those from vulnerable sections face discrimination.
Judgment-
In a ruling that emphasized following the law, CJI Dipak Misra affirmed that private persons cannot dispense justice on their own. In addition to directing State Governments to look into communal disturbances and encourage tolerance in order to preserve diversity and unity, the Court issued temporary orders for the appointment of Nodal Officers and highway patrolling. According to Article 21, lynching has been deemed a clear breach of the Constitution and the rule of law, violating the rights of citizens.
The Court published rules to prevent vigilantism:
Preventive Actions: State governments need to designate Nodal Officers and provide them with precise instructions regarding their responsibilities. Police should file FIRs under Section 153A of the IPC and disperse mobs in accordance with Section 129 of the CrPc. The federal and state governments need to stop the dissemination of hate speech and emphasize the harsh penalties associated with lynching and other forms of mob violence.
Corrective Actions: In the event of an occurrence, FIRs must be filed right away, and Nodal Officers notified. Victims should get compensation and free legal assistance, and cases should be handled quickly in fast-track courts.
Punitive Measures: Departmental action for misconduct or negligence will be taken against officers who disobey these measures; the processes will be completed in six months.
Ultimately, the Court suggested that Parliament establish a distinct lynching violation with suitable penalties.
Conclusion-
For millennia, people have been afflicted by the serious social problem of mob lynching, which can have disastrous effects on both individuals and communities. The historical background of mob lynching demonstrates the act's pervasiveness throughout various cultures and ages, as evidenced by the numerous examples and accounts that illustrate its heinous nature. The different forms of mob lynching, each characterized by certain traits, serve as additional evidence of the phenomenon's complexity.
Mob lynchings have far-reaching effects on the social fabric as a whole in addition to the immediate victims and their relatives. The legislative actions and public awareness efforts implemented to combat mob lynching highlight the significance of a multipronged strategy to end this threat. While offering a foundation for dealing with mob lynching, existing laws have been shown to be insufficient, underscoring the need for special measures under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The peculiar and serious nature of mob lynching—which frequently goes outside the purview of normal criminal laws—motivates the necessity for special measures under the BNS. Developing successful preventive measures requires an understanding of the social, economic, and political elements that contribute to mob lynching.
A number of Indian states, such as Manipur, West Bengal, and Rajasthan, have passed special laws against mob violence after realizing how serious the situation is. The legal landscape has been further impacted by seminal rulings on mob lynching, which have established important precedents and guidelines for instances to come.
In conclusion, combating mob lynching necessitates a thorough and well-coordinated approach that includes community involvement, legislative reforms, and public education. State-specific legislation, historic rulings, and special BNS provisions all constitute important milestones in the direction of ending this horrible practice and providing victims with justice.
Citation-
Drishti IAS, Title Mob Lynching, Published Date June 18, 2024
Ipleaders, Title All you need to know about mob lynching in India, Published Date December 6, 2023
https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-mob-lynching-in-india/
Articles, Title Manupatra, Accessed on August 1, 2024
https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/MOB-LYNCHING-A-RECURRING-PHENOMENON-IN-INDIA
Legal Service India, Title Review of Literature on Mob-Lynching in India, Accessed on July 31, 2024
Digital Sansad, Accessed Date July 31, 2024
https://sansad.in/getFile/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/209 OF 2022 AS12122022115556AM.pdf
Drishti IAS, Title Laws on Mob Lynching, Published January 18, 2020
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/law-on-mob-lynching
India Today, Title Daily Lynching in Bengal but mob bill gathering dust for 5 years. Who’s to Blame? Published on July 3, 2024
Tehseen S Poonawala vs. Union of India, Accessed on July 31, 2024
By Divyanshi Rathour
(Legal Intern at Nyaya Nishtha)