TEHSEEN S POONAWALA VS UNION OF INDIA

India, the world’s largest democracy, embodies the motto of “unity in diversity.” It is the government’s responsibility to protect fundamental rights, particularly for minority groups facing illegal acts by the majority.

Laws are crucial for a functioning democracy and are designed to reduce crime. In recent years, violence by mobs targeting individuals involved in cow trading has surged. Cow vigilante violence, justified in the name of cow protection, has led to extrajudicial killings, particularly affecting minority communities and eroding their sense of security. Such acts challenge the authority of the state and undermine the justice system.

In the landmark case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court, led by former Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, issued directives in 2018 to states concerning preventive, punitive, and remedial measures related to mob lynching addressing mob lynching. This ruling has significantly changed how such crimes are addressed in India. Mob lynching, a term referring to the unlawful killing or hanging of an individual by a mob, traces its origins to the American Revolution and is commonly associated with “Lynch Law,” which signifies punishment without a trial. In 19th-century America, this form of vigilante justice emerged as self-appointed groups took it upon themselves to punish those they deemed criminals.

Lynching often results in severe injury or death for individuals accused of crimes against their communities. Historically, mob lynching has occurred in various contexts, including witch hunts, caste-based violence, and notably, incidents related to bovine slaughter, particularly involving cows.

Tehseen S Poonawala Vs Union Of India

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 000754-000754 / 2016

(2018) 9 SCC 501

Court – SUPREME COURT 

Bench – Hon’ble Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar 

Decided on – 17th July, 2018

 Relevant Sections – Section 12 of the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954; Section 13 of the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976; Section 15 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964; Articles – 15, 21, 32. 256, 257 of the Indian Constitution.

Facts

Humans often recognize the truth in the saying, “Every dark cloud has a silver lining.” In light of the surge in mob lynching incidents over recent years, social activist Tehseen Poonawalla filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He requested the Court to direct the central and state governments to take action against cow vigilantes. The rise of vigilantism has been notable, with alarming cases, such as the lynching of two men in Jharkhand and the recent death of Pehlu Khan in Alwar, suspected of cow smuggling.

Poonawalla’s petition challenged provisions that shield individuals from legal action for actions taken in “good faith,” as stated in Section 13 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. This section declares that no legal proceedings can be initiated against anyone acting in good faith under this Act.

Issues

1. whether the central and state governments should develop an effective action plan against violent cow protection mobs and establish a victim compensation scheme for lynching?
2. Should the State and Central governments enact specific laws to address the offense of lynching?
3. Are state cow protection laws—such as 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—that protect cow vigilantes acting in “good faith,” constitutional?
4. Should the State and Central governments issue further directives to eliminate the violent social media content posted by these groups?

Rule: Observations On Lynching And Mob Violence

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on two writ petitions filed by Tehseen Poonawalla and Tushar Gandhi, in response to the alarming rise in mob violence. The first petition, submitted by Poonawalla, sought judicial intervention against the increasing incidents of cow vigilantism. He challenged the “good faith clauses” in cow protection laws that grant legal immunity to private citizens acting in “good faith.” However, in its order dated July 21, 2017, the Court opted not to evaluate the constitutionality of these clauses, focusing instead on mob violence and vigilantism.

Tushar Gandhi’s petition called for the Union government’s action against rising cow vigilantism. Both petitions were heard together by the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Dipak Misra delivering a unanimous opinion. The Court declared that acts of lynching, where individuals take the law into their own hands, are illegal and unacceptable.

The judgment condemned mob justice, stating that “no individual, whether alone or as part of a group, can take the law into their own hands and treat someone as guilty.” The Court emphasized that mob justice contradicts the principles of the legal system and is incompatible with a civilized society. It warned that if left unchecked, lynching could become “the new normal,” drawing parallels to the historical context of the United States, which was once referred to as “the United States of Lyncherdom” due to frequent lynchings.

It was argued that no one should engage in lynching based solely on mere suspicion of an offense. The activities constituting mob violence and lynching must be actively monitored and addressed by the executive. The case of Vahini v. Union of India (2018) 7 SCC 192 was cited to support the argument that the law can be used to prevent lynching. Furthermore, it was contended that the Central Government has the authority to intervene, based on Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution, to direct state governments.

The primary catalyst for such violence was identified as the spread of false information suggesting that victims were engaged in illegal cattle trade activities. The Court highlighted the importance of “unity in diversity,” asserting that India’s heterogeneous culture is a strength that is undermined by mob violence targeting individuals based on their identities. Citing Emile Durkheim, the Court stressed that unity founded on diversity is crucial. Additionally, it referenced the American case Riggins v. US to emphasize that mob justice violates the rule of law.

Ultimately, the Court issued guidelines under Sections 153 and 295A of the IPC, informed by the Shakti Vahini case regarding Khap Panchayat directives on inter-caste marriages. These comprehensive guidelines addressed not only cow vigilantism but also all forms of mob lynching and vigilantism, outlining key preventive, remedial, and punitive measures.

The Court expressed grave concern that lynching and mob violence pose creeping threats to the core of our democratic framework. Such acts cannot become the norm in society. It underscored the significance of “pluralism” and “tolerance” as foundational values of our culture. The Court noted that incidents of lynching and mob violence are primarily fueled by intolerance, misinformation, and other malicious factors.

In the case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court proposed guidelines for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat mob lynching. The Court urged Parliament to classify “lynching” as a distinct offense with appropriate penalties.

Key Guidelines By The Supreme Court

Preventive Measures

1. Nodal Officer Appointment: Each district must appoint a senior police officer, at least of Superintendent rank, as a Nodal Officer, supported by a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to tackle mob violence and lynching.
2. Special Task Force: State Governments should form a special task force to gather intelligence on hate speech and fake news.
3. Identifying Vulnerable Areas: States are required to identify districts, sub-divisions, and villages with recent lynching incidents.
4. Regular Meetings: The Nodal Officer should hold regular discussions with local intelligence units and Station House Officers to monitor trends in vigilantism and prevent the spread of inciting content on social media.
5. Eradication of Hostility: Efforts must be made to eliminate hostile environments targeting specific communities or castes.
6. DGP Oversight: The Director General of Police and Home Department Secretary should conduct quarterly reviews with Nodal Officers and police intelligence heads to enhance patrols in sensitive areas.
7. Coordination with Home Ministry: The Home Ministry must collaborate with State Governments to educate law enforcement on preventing mob violence and implementing social justice.
8. Awareness Campaigns: Governments should utilize various media platforms to inform the public about the legal consequences of lynching and mob violence.

Remedial Measures

1. Immediate FIR Registration: Police must promptly register an FIR in cases of lynching or mob violence.
2. Investigation Notification: The Station House Officer must keep the Nodal Officer informed about the investigation’s progress to ensure timely reporting.
3. State Compensation: State Governments should determine compensation based on physical and psychological injuries, lost earnings, and legal and medical expenses incurred.
4. Fast Track Trials: Cases of lynching and mob violence must be tried in designated fast-track courts, with proceedings conducted daily and completed within six months.
5. Maximum Sentencing: Trial courts should generally impose the maximum penalties allowable under the IPC to deter future offenses.
6. Victim Protection: Measures should be taken to protect victims and safeguard the identities of witnesses.
7. Legal Aid for Victims: Victims and the next of kin of deceased individuals in mob violence cases are entitled to free legal aid and may select any advocate from the legal aid panel.

Punitive Measures

1. Accountability for Negligence: Police or district administration officials who fail to follow these guidelines will be held accountable for negligence.
2. Disciplinary Action: States must take disciplinary action against officials who do not prevent mob violence, especially if they had prior knowledge of potential threats or failed to act promptly.

Obligations of Union and State Governments

• Preventive Measures: Each district should designate a senior police officer to monitor and prevent mob violence.
• Responsive Measures: Officers must act on any reports of mob violence and educate the public on the legal repercussions.
• Accountability: It is the responsibility of the central and state governments to ensure citizen safety, taking strict action against violators.
• Rehabilitation and Compensation: State governments must provide compensation and rehabilitation for victims and their families.
• Prompt Investigation and Trial: Lynching and mob violence cases should be fast-tracked to ensure swift justice.
• Technological Solutions: Governments should use modern technology to monitor and counter misinformation that could incite violence.

Constitutional Obligations

• The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which is violated by lynching and mob violence.
• The state must uphold this fundamental right and ensure that no citizen, especially from vulnerable groups, faces discrimination or violence.
• The Rule of Law (Article 14) is central to Indian democracy, mandating that no one be punished without legal authority.
• Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty, ensuring it is not infringed.

Legal Mechanism

• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Relevant sections include 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntary hurt), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting with deadly weapons), and 149 (unlawful assembly).
• Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Section 223(a) allows for joint charges for offenses committed during the same transaction, while Section 144 empowers magistrates to prohibit assemblies of more than four persons in certain areas.

Analysis:

A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, emphasized the State’s responsibility to protect citizens and maintain the nation’s “pluralistic social fabric” against mob violence. The judgment, authored by Chief Justice Misra alongside Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighted the need for laws that effectively instill fear in perpetrators. The Court expressed concern over the growing desensitization of ordinary Indians to frequent lynchings, which is alarming in a society governed by the rule of law. The government was urged to treat this judgment as a “clarion call” to strengthen social order during these critical times.

The Court also underscored the obligation of both the Centre and the States to ensure that no one takes the law into their own hands. It directed a range of preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat lynching and mob violence, mandating the implementation of these measures along with compliance reports within four weeks. In prior hearings, the Court classified lynching as a form of “sheer mob violence,” stating that compensation for victims should be based on the severity of injury rather than their religion or caste, as anyone could fall victim to such crimes. Chief Justice Misra asserted that States must not allow even the slightest opportunity for lynching to occur.

Conclusion:

This judgment arose from a contempt petition filed by activist Tehseen Poonawalla, who argued that despite Supreme Court directives to prevent lynching and cow vigilante violence, such crimes continued unabated. Senior advocate Indira Jaising noted a recent lynching just 60 km from Delhi, despite the Court’s orders for States to appoint nodal officers. She highlighted that these incidents demonstrate a pattern of targeted violence against specific religions or castes, violating constitutional guarantees under Article 15, which protects against discrimination based on religion, caste, sex, and gender. Chief Justice Misra urged the Centre to create a scheme under Article 256 to direct States in maintaining law and order, though Additional Solicitor General P.S. Narasimha argued such a scheme was unnecessary.

In a democracy like India, the rule of law is paramount, and every citizen is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Supreme Court’s observations in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India case serve as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities of both the State and society to uphold these values. Lynching and mob violence, fueled by prejudice and misinformation, have no place in our society, and it is the duty of all stakeholders to prevent such incidents.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):

1. What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India case?

Answer: The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India case is significant because it addressed the rising incidents of mob violence, particularly cow vigilantism. The Court issued directives to both the central and state governments, mandating the implementation of preventive, remedial, and punitive measures to combat mob lynching. It also emphasized that lynching and mob violence are illegal and incompatible with the rule of law, asserting that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands.

2. What were the main guidelines issued by the Supreme Court to prevent mob lynching?

Answer: The Supreme Court issued several key guidelines for preventing mob lynching, including:

• Appointment of Nodal Officers: Each district must appoint a senior police officer to handle mob violence.
• Special Task Force: State governments should create a task force to monitor hate speech and fake news.
• Vulnerable Areas Identification: States should identify areas prone to lynching.
• Regular Meetings: Nodal officers should meet regularly with intelligence units to track trends.
• Public Awareness Campaigns: Governments should educate citizens about the legal consequences of mob violence. These measures aim to prevent lynching and maintain public order.

3. What are the preventive, remedial, and punitive measures outlined in the Court’s ruling?

Answer:The Court outlined the following measures:

• Preventive Measures: Appointment of Nodal Officers, formation of a Special Task Force, identification of vulnerable areas, and awareness campaigns.
• Remedial Measures: Immediate FIR registration, fast-tracked trials, compensation for victims, and victim protection.
• Punitive Measures: Holding police and administrative officers accountable for negligence, disciplinary action against officials, and ensuring maximum sentencing for perpetrators.

4. What is the role of state cow protection laws in the rise of mob lynching, and what did the Supreme Court say about them?

Answer: State cow protection laws, such as those in Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka, provide legal immunity to individuals acting in “good faith” to protect cows. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that these laws should not be used as a shield for vigilantes engaging in mob violence. Although the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of these laws, it emphasized that mob lynching and vigilantism are illegal and must be addressed through effective legal mechanisms.

5. How does the Court’s ruling relate to India’s constitutional obligations?

Answer:The Court’s ruling reinforces India’s constitutional obligations under Articles 14, 21, and 32:

• Article 14 ensures equality before the law.
• Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which is violated by mob violence.
• Article 32 allows citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court emphasized that the State has the duty to protect citizens’ rights and maintain social harmony, ensuring that no one faces violence or discrimination.

6. What impact did the Court’s ruling have on the public perception of mob lynching in India?

Answer: The Supreme Court’s ruling sent a strong message that mob lynching is not acceptable in India and must be stopped. It warned that if such violence were left unchecked, it could become the “new normal,” undermining the democratic and pluralistic fabric of Indian society. The judgment aimed to instill a sense of accountability in the government, law enforcement, and the public to prevent and address lynching. It also raised awareness about the legal consequences of mob violence and the importance of upholding the rule of law in a diverse society. 

 Author: Prachi, Law Centre II Faculty of Law DU