SC Seeks Status Reports From States On Steps Taken To Curb Hate Crimes As Per 2018 Judgment In Tehseen Poonawalla's Case
The Supreme Court today has sought responses from the States to file a detailed status report in accordance with its judgment dated July 17, 2018, in a batch of petitions filed by Tehseen Poonawalla and Tushar Gandhi and others pertaining to cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching, or targeted violence and commission of offences affecting the human body and against private and public property by mobs. The Court had earlier through its judgment recommended to the legislature to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same as it would instil fear amongst the masses, and would deter them further.
While formulating remedial and preventive guidelines and punitive measures in the matter, the bench had then observed, “The horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become “the new normal”. The State cannot turn a deaf ear to the growing rumblings of its people, since its concern, to quote Woodrow Wilson, “must ring with the voices of the people.”
A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Bela M. Trivedi while hearing the matter today, observed, "Learned Attorney General for India has suggested and we agree that the Home Ministry shall convene a (meeting) of the heads of the department of the State cabinets for consolidation of data for compliance with the measures directed by this court both preventive and remedial measures directed by this court in the order dated July 17, 2018. The State government shall also file its year wise data before the Home Ministry. Also directed to file status report giving year wise data with regard to the number of cases with which templates were made and FIRs were registered. The preventive and remedial steps taken by the State government in terms of the judgment dated July 17, 2018 should also be mentioned and indicated in the status report. The Home Ministry shall also file an affidavit as to the outcome...".
AOR Shoeb Alam appeared for the petitioner, and Attorney General for India R. Venkatramini appeared for the Union of India.
In the pertinent case, through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners sought directions to the respondents to take immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence; and further to issue a writ or direction to remove the violent contents from the social media uploaded and hosted by the said groups.
While citing certain incidents, it further prayed to declare Section 12 of the Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954, Section 13 of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 and Section 15 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 as unconstitutional.
A bench comprising the present CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justice Khanwilkar while stipulating the remedial measures had directed the State Governments through its judgment to prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section 357A of CrPC within one month, considering the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and education and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical expenses.
Further, the Court directed that the cases of lynching and mob violence be specifically tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts earmarked for that purpose in each district. Such courts shall hold the trial of the case on a day-to-day basis and preferably conclude within six months.
The bench even directed that “To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and lynching, upon conviction of the accused person(s), the trial court must ordinarily award maximum sentence as provided for various offences under the provisions of the IPC”.
In terms of punitive measures, while referring to the ruling of the Court in Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405, the bench directed, “the States are directed to take disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits”.
Cause Title: Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India