Police in some States are recording mob lynching cases as brawls or accidents, Supreme Court told

States trying to shirk responsibility to prevent communal violence, says petitioner; claims “alarming rise” in mob violence against Muslims; court says debate on lynching should not take on communal colours

The petition submitted that there has been an “alarming rise in cases of lynchings and mob violence against Muslims”. A view of the Supreme Court of India. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a petitioner’s contention that mob lynching incidents are recorded by the police in certain States as brawls or accidents.

Appearing before a three-judge Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, advocate Nizam Pasha, representing the petitioner, the National Federation of Women, claimed that this was a deliberate ploy by authorities to skirt their responsibility under the court’s Tehseen Poonawala judgment.

That 2018 judgment had issued a series of guidelines to the States and their police forces to take steps to prevent communal violence and lynchings. The court had directed the police to register first information reports (FIRs) and prosecute the perpetrators without delay.

Rising violence

The petition submitted that there has been an “alarming rise in cases of lynchings and mob violence against Muslims”.

“The instant urgent relief is also being sought in view of the consistent failure of the State machinery to take adequate preventive and consequential action to curb the menace of lynching and mob violence. The positive duty of the State to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals and the primary responsibility of the State to foster a secular, pluralistic and multiculturalist social order have been recognised by this court in several judgments, including in Tehseen Poonawalla,” the petition said.

‘Don’t communalise debate’

During the hearing, Justice Aravind Kumar asked Mr. Pasha whether the incident of the murder of tailor Kanhaiya Kumar in Udaipur was mentioned in the petition.

Mr. Pasha assured the court that he had not been selective in his petition.

Senior advocate Archana Pathak Dave, appearing for the Gujarat government, alleged that the petition was biased and covered only incidents in which Muslims were the victims.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, on the Bench, said that a debate on lynching should not take on communal colours. The court said that such acts of violence were crimes regardless of the faith of the perpetrators or the victims.

The court gave States six weeks to file their responses to the petition.