Supreme Court’s Vigilance on Mob Lynching

Source: The Hindu

      Introduction:

• The Supreme Court of India has taken a proactive approach in assessing the actions taken by the Union and State governments to address incidents of mob violence and lynchings.
• Since its July 2018 judgment condemning these acts as mobocracy, the court has directed State governments to provide comprehensive data on complaints, FIRs, and court proceedings related to such incidents.
• This article explores the background of mob lynching, the Supreme Court’s observations, and the directive for preventive and remedial measures.

Background of Mob Lynching:

• The 2018 Supreme Court bench addressed the growing concerns of vigilantism, mob lynching, communal violence, and hate crimes. It emphasized that states have the responsibility to prevent individuals or core groups from taking the law into their own hands.
• The court declared that mob lynching undermines the rule of law and constitutional values, leading to anarchy and violence in society.

Supreme Court’s Observations:

• The Supreme Court stressed the importance of prevention and vigilance, stating that authorities responsible for maintaining law and order must prevent vigilantism, including cow vigilantism, from occurring.
• The court expressed concern over rising intolerance and growing polarization fueled by incidents of mob violence. It highlighted the dangers posed by lynching and mob violence, which could escalate into widespread incidents influenced by intolerance, misinformation, and the circulation of fake news.

Directive for Preventive and Remedial Measures:

• To address the issue effectively, the Supreme Court provided several directives to the State governments. It mandated the appointment of senior police officers as Nodal Officers in each district to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching.
• State governments were also instructed to identify high-incidence areas and take necessary actions. Police officers were directed to disperse mobs using their authority, and prompt FIR registration was emphasized.
• Nodal Officers were entrusted with the responsibility of personally monitoring investigations and ensuring effective implementation. Additionally, the court called for the establishment of victim compensation schemes and designated courts to handle cases related to lynching and mob violence.

Directive to State Governments:

• The Supreme Court instructed State governments to compile comprehensive data on incidents of mob violence and lynchings. The data should include information on complaints filed, FIRs registered, and progress made each year.
• The court recommended coordination between the Ministry of Home Affairs and relevant department heads of State governments to obtain updates on the measures taken in response to the court’s 2018 judgment. Compliance with previous directions, including the formation of Special Task Forces, was reiterated.

The Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court’s monitoring of preventive and remedial measures for mob lynching reflects its commitment to addressing this issue.
• By directing the consolidation of data and urging compliance with its 2018 judgment, the court aims to hold the Union and State governments accountable for their actions.
• These measures seek to curb vigilantism, protect the rule of law, and ensure justice for victims of mob violence and lynchings. Through its vigilant oversight, the Supreme Court strives to uphold the principles of justice and ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens.