The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasized the impracticality of micro-managing mob lynching cases from the national capital and disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought more decisive action against cow vigilantism, particularly targeting Muslims.
The bench, comprising Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran, referenced the apex court’s 2018 decision which provided comprehensive measures—preventive, remedial, and punitive—to address the issue of mob violence and cow vigilantism. The justices noted, “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 PIL called for immediate action from the states in line with the 2018 Supreme Court directives to more effectively handle incidents of lynching and mob violence. The court reminded that these directives are binding nationwide under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Regarding the requests within the PIL for redressal for victims of lynching and mob violence, the court clarified that if there is non-compliance with its directives, the aggrieved parties have the right to approach competent courts. On the matter of compensation, the court expressed that compensation should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis, emphasizing that uniform compensation for varied injuries would be unjust.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, pointed to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), under which mob lynching is classified as a separate offense. He referenced the detailed guidelines issued in the 2018 verdict, highlighting the judicial measures already in place to combat such crimes.
The petitioner’s counsel argued there was “gross non-compliance” with the 2018 directives across different states, suggesting a lack of adequate enforcement by authorities. The Supreme Court bench, however, questioned the feasibility of revisiting a matter already concluded and suggested that those aggrieved by state notifications on the issue should approach their jurisdictional high courts.
