Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Cow protection groups indulging in violence – Cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching – Writ petition u/Art. 32 seeking direction to State to take immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence – Issuance of direction to remove the violent contents from the social media – Held: Act of lynching is unlawful – It is constitutional duty to take a call to protect lives and human rights – No citizen can assault the human dignity of another, for such an action would comatose the majesty of law – Authorities conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the States have the principal obligation to see that no individual or any core group take law into their own hands – It is to be seen that vigilantism, cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does not take place, else it would usher in anarchy, chaos, disorder – Thus, vigilantism cannot be allowed – Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself – Steps to be taken at every stage for implementation of law are extremely important – Hence, the guidelines in the form of preventive, remedial and punitive measures are prescribed – Centre and State Government to carry out said measures within the stipulated period.
Guidelines – Cow vigilantism, incidents of lynching and mob violence – Issuance of guidelines in the form of preventive, remedial and punitive measures to curb cow vigilantism and incidents of lynching.
Legislation – Offence of lynching – Recommendations to the legislature, Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The States have the onerous duty to see that no individual or any core group take law into their own hands. Every citizen has the right to intimate the police about the infraction of law. An accused booked for an offence is entitled to fair and speedy trial under the constitutional and statutory scheme and, thereafter, he may be convicted or acquitted as per the adjudication by the judiciary on the basis of the evidence brought on record and the application of legal principles. There cannot be an investigation, trial and punishment of any nature on the streets. The process of adjudication takes place within the hallowed precincts of the courts of justice and not on the streets. No one has the right to become the guardian of law claiming that he has to protect the law by any means. [Para 15] [312-G-H; 313-A-B]
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and Others (2015) 3 SCC
467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987 ; Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others 2018 (5) SCALE 51 ; Nandini Sundar and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC
547 : [2011] 8 SCR 1028 ; Mohd. Haroon and Others v. Union of India and Another (2014) 5 SCC 252 : [2014] 4 SCR 907 ; Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and Another (2016) 9 SCC
682 – referred to.
1.2 There can be no 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. When any core group with some kind of idea take the law into their own hands, it ushers in anarchy, chaos, disorder and, eventually, there is an emergence of a violent society. Vigilantism cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be given room to take shape, for it is absolutely a perverse notion. Certain applications have been filed on the basis that there is cattle smuggling and cruel treatment to animals. It is the law enforcing agencies which have to survey, prevent and prosecute. No one has the authority to enter into the said field and harbour the feeling that he is the law and the punisher himself. A country where the rule of law prevails does not allow any such thought. It, in fact, commands for ostracisation of such thoughts with immediacy. [Para 17] [313-F-G; 314-A-B]
1.3 Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself. It is said 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. Such vigilantism, be it for whatever purpose or borne out of whatever cause, has the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the State and altering the constitutional order. The tumultuous dark clouds of vigilantism have the effect of shrouding the glorious ways of democracy and justice leading to tragic breakdown of the law and transgressing all forms of civility and humanity. Unless these incidents are controlled, the day is not far when such monstrosity in the name of self-professed morality is likely to assume the shape of a huge cataclysm. It is in direct violation of the quintessential spirit of the rule of law and of the exalted faiths of tolerance and humanity. [Para 18] [314-B-E]
1.4 Mob vigilantism and mob violence have to be prevented by the governments by taking strict action and by the vigil society who ought to report such incidents to the state machinery and the police instead of taking the law into their own hands. Rising intolerance and growing polarisation expressed through spate of incidents of mob violence cannot be permitted to become the normal way of life or the normal state of law and order in the country. Good governance and nation building require sustenance of law and order which is intricately linked to the preservation of the marrows of the social structure. In such a situation, the State has a sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens from unruly elements and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with utmost sincerity and true commitment to address and curb such incidents which must reflect in its actions and schemes. [Para 19] [314-E-H]
1.5 Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and non-State actors cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the law enforcing agency. A fabricated identity with bigoted approach sans acceptance of plurality and diversity results in provocative sentiments and display of reactionary retributive attitude transforming itself into dehumanisation of human beings. Such an atmosphere is one in which rational debate, logical discussion and sound administration of law eludes thereby manifesting clear danger to various freedoms including freedom of speech and expression. One man’s freedom of thought, action, speech, expression, belief, conscience and personal choices is not being tolerated by the other and this is due to lack of objective rationalisation of acts and situations. [Para 20] [315-A-C]
1.6 Freedom of speech and expression in different forms is the élan vital of sustenance of all other rights and is the very seed for germinating the growth of democratic views. Plurality of voices celebrates the constitutionalist idea of a liberal democracy and ought not to be suppressed. That is the idea and essence of our nation which cannot be broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls of caste, creed, race, class or religion. Pluralism and tolerance are essential virtues and constitute the building blocks of a truly free and democratic society. It must be emphatically stated that a dynamic contemporary constitutional democracy imbibes the essential feature of accommodating pluralism in thought and approach so as to preserve cohesiveness and unity. Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic mindset sows the seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and expression. Hence, tolerance has to be fostered and practised and not allowed to be diluted in any manner. [Para 21][315-D-G] S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Others (1989) 2 SCC 574 : [1989] 2 SCR 204 – referred to.
Handyside v. United Kingdom 1976 EHRR 737 –
referred to.
1.7 In a rights based approach to constitutional legitimacy, the right to life and liberty is considered paramount and, therefore, democratic governments must propel and drive towards stronger foothold for liberties so as to ensure sustenance of higher values of democracy thereby paving the path for a spontaneous constitutional order. Crime knows no religion and neither the perpetrator nor the victim can be viewed through the lens of race, caste, class or religion. The State has a positive obligation to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals irrespective of race, caste, class or religion. The State has the primary responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and multiculturalistic social order so as to allow free play of ideas and beliefs and co-existence of mutually contradictory perspectives. Stifling free voices can never bode well for a true democracy. It is essential to build societies which embrace diversity in all spheres and rebuild trust of the citizenry in the State machinery. [Para 23] [316-D-F]
1.8 For our nation to survive, without being whittled down, it is a necessary precondition that all must embrace the sentiment that they are the essential constituents of diversity that galvanizes for preservation of unity and respects pluralistic perceptions in cohesion with the constitutional ethos. [Para 32] [319-E-F] St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1 SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 ; Sri Adi
Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 606 : [1997]
2 SCR 1086 ; State of Karnataka and another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004) 4 SCC 684 :
[2004] 3 SCR 652 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav (1976) 4 SCC 213 : [1977] 1 SCR 616 – referred to.
1.9 The law provides a procedure for arrest and equally for investigation and the consequential trial. That is what has been interpreted by this Court while dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the rights of the citizens cannot be destroyed in an unlawful manner. As the investigating agency has to show fidelity to the statutory safeguards, similarly, every citizen is required to express loyalty to law and the legal procedure. No one, is entitled to take the law into his own hands and annihilate anything that the majesty of law protects. When the vigilantes involve themselves in lynching or any kind of brutality, they, in fact, put the requisite accountability of a citizen to law on the ventilator. That cannot be countenanced. Such core groups cannot be allowed to act as they please. They cannot be permitted to indulge in freezing the peace of life on the basis of their contrived notions. They are no one to punish a person by ascribing any justification. The stand and stance put forth in the interlocutory applications filed by the impleaded parties intend to convey certain contraventions of the provisions of statutory law but the prescription of punishment does not empower any one to authorize himself to behave as the protector of law and impose punishment as per his choice and fancy. That is the role and duty of the law enforcing agencies known to law. No one else can be permitted to expropriate that role. It has to be clearly understood that self-styled vigilantes have no role in that sphere. Their only right is to inform the crime, if any, to the law enforcing agency. It is the duty of the law enforcement agencies and the prosecutors to bring the accused persons before the law adjudicating authorities who, with their innate training and sense of justice, peruse the materials brought on record, follow the provisions of law and pass the judgment. In the scheme of things, the external forces cannot assume the role of protectors and once they pave the said path, they associate themselves with criminality and bring themselves in the category of criminals. It is imperative for them to remember that they are subservient to the law and cannot be guided by notions or emotions or sentiments or, for that matter, faith. [Para 34][320-D-H; 321-A-B]
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 : [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 ; Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260 ; Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Others (1993) 2 SCC 746 ; State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Others (1995) 4 SCC
262 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 44 ; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128 – referred to.
Ex parte Riggins (C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404; Wilson v. Garcia 471 U.S. 261 (1985) – referred to.
1.10 The act of lynching is unlawful. It has become a sweeping phenomenon with a far-reaching impact. It is constitutional duty to take a call to protect lives and human rights. There cannot be a right higher than the right to live with dignity and further to be treated with humanness that the law provides. What the law provides may be taken away by lawful means; that is the fundamental concept of law. No one is entitled to shake the said foundation. No citizen can assault the human dignity of another, for such an action would comatose the majesty of law. In a civilized society, it is the fear of law that prevents crimes. When the preventive measures face failure, the crime takes place and then there have to be remedial and punitive measures. Steps to be taken at every stage for implementation of law are extremely important. Hence, the guidelines are necessary to be prescribed. [Para 39][323-D-H]
1.11 Preventive Measures
(i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal Officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by one of the DSP rank officers in the district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They shall constitute a special task force so as to procure intelligence reports about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.
(ii) The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say, in the last five years. The process of identification should be done within a period within the stipulated period.
(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers of the concerned districts for ensuring that the Officer In-charge of the Police Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of mob violence within their jurisdiction comes to their notice.
(iv) The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular meetings (at least once a month) with the local intelligence units in the district along with all Station House Officers of the district so as to identify the existence of the tendencies of vigilantism, mob violence or lynching in the district and take steps to prohibit instances of dissemination of offensive material through different social media platforms or any other means for inciting such tendencies. The Nodal Officer shall also make efforts to eradicate hostile environment against any community or caste which is targeted in such incidents.
(v) The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall take regular review meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall bring to the notice of the DGP any inter-district co-ordination issues for devising a strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence related issues at the State level.
(vi) It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of CrPC, which, in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or wreak the havoc of lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise.
(vii) The Home Department of the Government of India must take initiative and work in co-ordination with the State Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies and by involving all the stake holders to identify the measures for prevention of mob violence and lynching against any caste or community and to implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the Rule of Law.
(viii) The Director General of Police shall issue a circular to the Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling in the sensitive areas keeping in view the incidents of the past and the intelligence obtained by the office of the Director General. It singularly means that there should be seriousness in patrolling so that the anti-social elements involved in such crimes are discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law thus fearing to even think of taking the law into their own hands.
(ix) The Central and the State Governments should broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms including the official websites of the Home Department and Police of the States that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the law.
(x) It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well as the State Governments to take steps to curb and stop dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other material on various social media platforms which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.
(xi) The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A of IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.
(xii) The Central Government shall also issue appropriate directions/advisories to the State Governments which would reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the measures to be taken. [Para 40] [324-A-H; 325-A-H]
Remedial Measures
(i) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of lynching or mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional police station shall immediately cause to lodge an FIR, without any undue delay, under the relevant provisions of IPC and/or other provisions of law.
(ii) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate the Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure that there is no further harassment of the family members of the victim(s).
(iii) Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure that the investigation is carried out effectively and the chargesheet in such cases is filed within the statutory period from the date of registration of the FIR or arrest of the accused, as the case may be.
(iv) The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section 357A of CrPC. In the said scheme for computation of compensation, the State Governments shall give due regard to 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. The said compensation scheme must also have a provision for interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of the deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob violence/lynching.
(v) The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts earmarked for that purpose in each district. Such courts shall hold trial of the case on a day to day basis. The trial shall preferably be concluded within six months from the date of taking cognizance. This direction shall apply to even pending cases. The District Judge shall assign those cases as far as possible to one jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious disposal thereof. It shall be the duty of the State Governments and the Nodal Officers in particular to see that the prosecuting agency strictly carries out its role in appropriate furtherance of the trial.
(vi) 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.
(vii) The courts trying the cases of mob violence and lynching may, on application by a witness or by the public prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such measures, as it deems fit, for protection and for concealing the identity and address of the witness.
(viii) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice of any court proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be heard at the trial in respect of applications such as bail, discharge, release and parole filed by the accused persons. They shall also have the right to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.
(ix) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or she so chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice from amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. [Para 40] [326-A-H; 327-A-D]
Punitive Measures
(i) Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of the district administration has failed to comply with the directions in order to prevent and/or investigate and/or facilitate expeditious trial of any crime of mob violence and lynching, the same should be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which appropriate action must be taken against him/her and not limited to departmental action under the service rules. The departmental action shall be taken to its logical conclusion by the authority.
(ii) The States are directed to take disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is found that such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits. [Para 40] [327-E-H]
Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405 : [2011] 5 SCR 488 – referred to.
1.12 The measures that are directed to be taken have to be carried out within the stipulated period by the Central and the State Governments. [Para 41] [328-A]
1.13 It is axiomatic that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the machinery of law and order functions efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to preserve the quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law. In times of chaos and anarchy, the State has to act positively and responsibly to safeguard and secure the constitutional promises to its citizens. 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. The exigencies of the situation require to sound a clarion call for earnest action to strengthen the inclusive and allembracing social order to, reaffirm the constitutional faith. Nothing more and nothing less is expected. [Para 42] [328-B-D]
1.14 It appropriate to recommend to the legislature, Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. It is 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. Fear of law and veneration for the command of law constitute the foundation of a civilized society. [Para 43] [328-E-F]
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and Others (2014) 11 SCC 477 : [2014] 4 SCR 446 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.