Let's not make it communal: Supreme Court on mob violence, lynchings

Let’s not make it communal: Supreme Court on mob violence, lynchings

NEW DELHI: As the hearing on the issue of mob lynching acquired a Hindu vs Muslim complexion, Supreme Court on Tuesday cautioned lawyers and asked them to maintain restraint and discipline inside the court and keep religion and caste out of the proceedings.

“Let’s not go by religion or caste,” a bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta told lawyers after the hearing took an unexpected communal turn with Gujarat govt asking why only incidents of lynching of Muslims had been mentioned in the petition filed by National Federation of Indian Women( NFIW), and the petitioner alleging that the “alarming rise” in lynching of Muslims in the country was a “reality”.

Through its petition, NFIW, a constituent of the Communist Party of India, sought a direction to state govts to take action against culprits involved in mob lynching.

However, the bench, at the very outset, aked NFIW lawyer Nizam Pasha whether he had also mentioned the murder of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur. Lal, a tailor, was killed in 2022 for sharing a controversial post on Prophet Muhammad.

Opposing the petition, senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for Gujarat govt, said the petitioner only highlighted mob lynching of Muslims even though people from other communities were also being targeted. “This is just mob lynching of Muslims,” she said.

Pasha told the bench that NFIW was not a Muslim organisation and countered Dave’s submission saying Muslims were the primary target of mob lynching and it was a “statistical fact” which could not be ignored.

As the lawyers continued making allegations and counter allegations, the bench asked them to maintain discipline and restraint while arguing and to keep religion out of the hearing.

The bench said there was nothing wrong with the petitioners bringing incidents of mob lynching to the court’s notice and the other side could also highlight other incidents. “You tell us what are the incidents in which Hindus were lynched,” the bench told Dave. The SC had earlier too said that action must be taken against hate speech and mob violence irrespective of religion.

As it was alleged that state govts were not taking measures to deal with mob lynching as directed by the SC in 2018, the court sought an explanation from states on action taken by them in such cases and granted them six weeks time to respond.

The petitioner alleged that there was an alarming rise in cases of lynchings and mob violence against Muslims despite clear guidelines from the SC and sought its intervention in view of the consistent failure of govts to take adequate action to curb the menace.

The SC, in its 2018 verdict, had said lynching and mob violence were creeping threats to society instigated by intolerance and circulation of fake news and false stories and framed guidelines on taking preventive, remedial and punitive measures to deal with the menace.

Regarding preventive measures, the court had directed that an SP rank officer be appointed as nodal officer in each district for taking measures to prevent mob violence and lynching and a special task force be created to procure intelligence reports about people who were likely to commit such crimes or who were involved in spreading hate speech, provocative statements and fake news.

Last year, the court had directed police to take suo motu action and lodge FIR in hate speech cases without waiting for a complaint to be filed by an aggrieved person.

For more news like this visit TOI. Get all the Latest News, City News, India News, Business News, and Sports News. For Entertainment News, TV News, and Lifestyle Tips visit Etimes