Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Latest Articles
Back
Mob Lynching: Role of Politics and approach of Judiciary on the horrendous acts of Mobocracy
Introduction
When a group of people kill an alleged transgressor in order to punish him without sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process, it is called as Lynching. Such a killing is also known as extrajudicial killing[i] and is considered to be unethical.
The phrase ‘Lynch Law’ means a punishment without trial. The word Lynching comes from the same phrase. Every society has witnessed some form of extrajudicial punishments by mob or group of people.
Dyer Bill[ii] that was passed in the year 1922 by the United States House of Representatives assured to punish the crime of lynching. Because of multiple incidents since 18th century this bill was introduced in 1918[iii].
Mob Lynching and India
India is a secular state. Due to internal tensions between religions there have been numerous lynching incidents. In 2006, Kherlanji Massacre[iv] which was a communal violence shook the society. Women of the victim family were paraded naked in front of people and then were mutilated and murdered.
Cow slaughter is one of the major reasons why Mob Lynching has been happening in India. Some notable unfortunate attacks are Dadri Mob Lynching 2015[v], Jharkhand Mob Lynching 2016[vi], Alwar Mob Lynching 2017[vii] etc.
Administration of Law is conferred in the hands of proper law enforcing agencies and absolutely no one is allowed to take law in his hand on the fancy of his shallow spirit of Judgement.[viii]
Politics constantly works to ignite the crime of lynching as Political parties mould these crimes into a political and social propaganda for their political benefit. They ensure differences between communities and capitalize the gains out of it. Therefore this comes out as the unfortunate side that the parties which are entrusted with the duty to eradicate such problems are promoting it.
Approach of Judiciary on horrendous acts of Mobocracy
It is the duty of the Executive to ensure that any such mob violence is crippled without any excuse. Moreover prevention and punitive measures in relation to Mob Lynching should be taken into consideration.
In the recent past, the society has seen self-proclaimed vigilantes taking law in their hands resulting mainly in oppression of member of minorities as they have been a continuous target of such mob violence. It is the responsibility of state to prevent communal violence in any part of state and if any officer during the responsibility is found negligent, he has to be answerable for his negligent attitude to the appropriate authority[ix].
The Landmark case of Tahseen poonawalla v Union of India[x], the Supreme Court issued guidelines to deal with the cases of mob lynching in India. The court ordered state governments to designate senior police in each district to prevent incidents of mob lynching. State Governments were asked to identify the areas where instances of mob lynching in recent past had happened. Supreme Court in this case asked the state governments to prepare a Mob lynching victim compensation scheme. Supreme Court entrusted the Nodal officers with the duty of devising strategies to DGP to tackle mob-lynching related issues[xi].
The apex court also considered the abuse of social media platforms where people promote or incite the mob violence and so the court issued the guideline to curb and stop such irresponsible messages and asked to register FIR against such persons to stop the abuse of social media platforms in Mob Lynching issue[xii].
The effectiveness of all the guidelines that were issued in this case; headed by the bench of Former CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice D Y Chandrachud, completely relied on the work of District Police Departments and the Bench took it into account and held if a police officer fails to perform any duty he is responsible for, it would be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and appropriate action regarding the same must be taken[xiii].
Mob Lynching is a threat to society that has negative impact on pluralistic social fabric that constitutes the block of democracy of a true democratic nation like India. The law of the land guarantees the dignity of every human being and it doesn’t allow any other citizens to take that away.
Indian Penal Code doesn’t have any special provision for the punitive measures as for now. But Supreme Court has been taking cognizance of the offences as in 2011 it held that the state has the responsibility to prevent internal disturbance and t take steps to ensure public order.[xiv] Parliament was recommended to create a separate offence of lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same.[xv] In the case of Arumugal Servai, Court ordered that action must be taken against the officers who didn’t institute criminal proceedings against the accused[xvi]. In 2016, Supreme Court condemned the failure of execution of Odisha Police in providing protection during assassination of Swami Laxmananda and other[xvii].
In July 2019, Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by Anti-Corruption Council of India Trust and the SC bench was headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta when Supreme Court issued notice seeking the implementation of the previous order that asked to draft new legislation regarding the Mob Lynching issue[xviii].
The Legal Aspect of Mob Lynching
Since 2010 to 2018, Out of the 60 attacks, 32 were based on rumours according to the analysis of media reports.[xix] But still our Substantial and Procedural laws don’t recognize the crime of Mob lynching through a special provision.
It is a notable fact that ne one side where Mob Lynching is considered to be a heinous crime against a community[xx], in majority of the cases, sections imposed on the accused were Section 302 (Punishment for Murder), Section 307 (Attempt to Murder), Section 323 (Punishment for causing hurt), Section 325 (Punishment for causing grievous hurt) of Indian Penal Code which doesn’t look fair as in the cases of Mob Lynching it is a matter of public order and offence against a community and not an offence against person.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that mob involved in same offence can be tried together[xxi]. Indian Penal Code also lays down provisions related to hate speech and hate crimes under section 153, 153B, 505 etc but they are imposed in the cases of Mob Lynching where these factors play a really important role.
After the Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent such Mob Lynching crimes, Manipur in 2018 became the first state to pass a remarkable law against the issue of Lynching. It follows Supreme Court’s guidelines and creates a Nodal Officer to control such crimes, Special courts and also enhances punishment. It describes Lynching as
Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting such acts thereof, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dirty practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity or any other related grounds[xxii].
It also prescribes compensation and says it should attract Section 153A of Indian Penal Code.
The West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019 provides for three years to life imprisonment to those injuring a person and capital punishment or rigorous life imprisonment for those causing death.
The Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill, 2019 made mob lynching a cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable offence punishable with life imprisonment and a fine up to Rs 5 lakh. It follows the guidelines of Supreme Court and creates Fast track Courts.
The Government of Karnataka in September 2019 gave a circular appointing Nodal Officer and assistant and closely followed the prescriptions of Supreme Court’s disciplinary actions. So compliance by the states to Supreme Courts orders has met the guidelines. But it cannot be denied that Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure do fail in recognizing Mob Lynching crimes and issues it brings with itself thus resulting in lack of punitive measures.
Mob Lynching and role of Politics
Now the question arises if Judiciary has been taking cognizance of matters of Mob Lynching and has also issued guidelines and measures to control the same then why there is no indubitable progress as to implement the orders. Here is when the influence of politics comes in the picture[xxiii].
In 2017, A 62 years old Ghulam Mohammad was killed in Mob Lynching and the accused of the murder of deceased were from the right wing group set of Yogi Adityanath who now is the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The police denied of having any proof against the accused[xxiv]. In 2015, Mohammad Akhlaq on suspicion of possession of beef was lynched and the accused according to media reports was supported by Yogi Adityanath. The Key accused in this case was the son of Local Party worker[xxv]. Unfortunately even after these coincidental inclusions of Yogi Adityanath in such several cases, there have been no proofs that can explain these heinous crimes.
According to Media Reports, in 2017, Zafar Khan was lynched to death in Rajasthan but shockingly the post-mortem reports said that he died of a heart attack[xxvi]. Surprisingly No evidence was found and case was closed. Haryana Lynching 2017 showed that Beef is an issue that normalises Lynching in the society. Anger, of course, is a devil every individual battles with. But when anger towards certain communities and religions, is fueled on a daily basis using different means, lynching becomes the new normal.
Based on my research I argue that a Lynching is always political. It is a joint criminal enterprise that is always planned. Lynching destroys the notion of community and one violent act renders the subsequent violence inevitable. Two of the three lynchings in Odisha were studied and it was found out victims were from Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu but no insider was attacked[xxvii] even when they were related to victims. Surprisingly, no evidence was found to conclude the case. Victims are poor, female, transgender, non-natives, outsiders, muslims or dalits.
But the government needs to acknowledge the problem and it needs to break the silence. More than violence of bad people, silence of good people let the world suffer but yet people are not ready to do something about it. Almost all states have filed their compliance reports but there has been no move in introducing the bill proposing solutions to Mob Lynching[xxviii]. In July 2019, to formulate appropriate measures[xxix] to address the situation, the government had set up a high-level committee chaired by Union Home Secretary Gauba to deliberate upon the matter and make recommendations.
It was said that the committee shall submit its report[xxx] as per as recommendations of Supreme Court in relation to Mob Lynching in four weeks but there has been no update as it has been four months[xxxi]. Union Government on 21st November 2019 said that it issued advisories to states and union Territories on July 23 and September 25 in the year 2018 based on Supreme Court’s order[xxxii]. There has been no uniformity as to the status of bill on Mob Lynching in parliament.
Manipal and Rajasthan have enacted a law regarding Lynching but the other states have only filed the compliance reports. The sad truth is there have always been hidden political agendas beneath Mob Lynching and the political parties would not take any sufficient measures to eradicate the problem until and unless Supreme Court compels them to provide solutions. It has been more than 1 year of the judgment but yet there is no progress on the side of Central Government and the only reason is political agendas.
Conclusion
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 and the State must not turn a deaf ear to the growing rumblings of its People. 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 our quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law.
Judiciary can lay down the guidelines, punitive and preventive measures but passing the legislation and execution of the same efficiently has to be done by the other organs and as for now in the context of Lynching, they have failed at it. Every citizen has to abide by the law and the law never confers the power on a citizen to take law into his hands.
When an illegal act is tried out of court and people be the jury, the trial is illegal and it defeats the existence of justice altogether[xxxiii]. People one side make the comments of all terrorists being Muslims and on other side Indian Muslims are learning to endure an intense sense of foreboding – a lurking, unspoken fear - the persisting danger of imminent violence, of being vulnerable to attack anywhere, even in their homes - only for looking and being Muslim[xxxiv].
Solution and Recommendations
The parliament must follow the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court to draft and pass a new law to deal with the cases of mob lynchings as the delay would lead to more attacks and fear in the communities. The new law should define the term “Mob Lynching” and must give all remedial, preventive and punitive measures at very specific level[xxxv] to establish a clarity as to what all can be done to stop these crimes and the imprisonment term that the convict should get. Justice has to be served and secured no matter what factors influence the agenda.
Steps can be taken by the administration to ensure speedy trial and justice. FIR should be registered without any delay, quashing of bail applications by the accused as they pose a serious threat to the victims and their family because of the hate linked with the crime.
Apart from this relief, a fair compensation should be paid to the victims or their family for the loss suffered by them and they should be provided free legal aid for them to secure justice. Most importantly the trial should be speedy in nature and if an officer doesn’t meet the requirements of duties he should have performed because of his negligence, strict action as ordered by Supreme Court must be taken. Enforcement of the new law should be done with utmost care and preciseness. Enforcement is an important side of law and order. Justice brings peace to the families of victims but it doesn’t end their sufferings. So, in my opinion it is the time government should realize its duty in regard to problem of Mob Lynching and it must take required and right step as soon as possible meeting all the requirement of measures prescribed by Supreme Court of India.
[i] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrajudicial_killing
[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill
[iii] Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, Volume 65, Issue 2 Washington DC: Government Printing Office. 1918. p. 297.
[iv] Jaishankar, K. (2011), First International Conference of the South Asian Society [of] Criminology and Victimology (SASCV), 15–17 January 2011, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India: SASCV 2011 : Conference Proceedings, South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology. International Conference.
[v] Dadri: Outrage after mob lynches man for allegedly consuming beef The Indian Express: 1 October 2015.
[vi] 5 held in Jharkhand killings, section 144 imposed in the area. News 18.19 March 2016
[vii] Beaten to death for being a dairy farmer, BBC News 8 April 2017.
[viii] Krishnamoorthy v Shivakumar and others [(2015) 3SCC 467]
[ix] Mohd. Haroon and others v Union of India and other [(2014) 5 SCC 252]
[x] Tahseen S. Poonawalla v Union of India and others Writ petition No. 754 of 2016
[xi] https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/make-lynching-a-separate-offence-sc-tells-parliament
[xii] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mob-lynching-draft-new-legislation-to-stop-people-taking-law-into-own-hands-says-sc-to-parliament/articleshow/65019261.cms
[xiii] https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/mob-lynching-1
[xiv] Nandini Sundar v state of Chhattisharh [(2011)7 SCC 547]
[xv] Tahseen S. Poonawalla v Union of India and others Writ petition No. 754 of 2016
[xvi] Arumugal Servai v State of Tamil Nadu and Mohammad Haroon and others v Union of India [(2014) SCC 252]
[xvii] Archbishop Raphel Cheenath v State of Orissa [(2016) 9 SCC 682]
[xviii] https://www.livemint.com/news/india/mob-lynching-sc-issues-notice-in-pil-seeking-implementation-of-previous-order-1564139655647.html
[xix] India’ s ratio of 138 police personnel per lakh of population fifth lowest among 71 countries”, The Economic Times , 13 July 2018. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/indias - ratio - of - 138 - police - personnel - per - lakh - of - population - fifth - lowest - among - 71 - countries/articleshow/48264737.cms. Accessed on 21 July 2018
[xx] Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi and others v. State of U.P. and others (1997) 4 SCC 606
[xxi] 223(a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of same transaction may be tried together.
[xxii] drishtiias.com/printpdf/showing-the-way-on-manipurs-new-anti-lynching-law
[xxiii] State of Karnataka and another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia [(2004) 4 SCC 684]
[xxiv] https://www.ndtv.com/cities/man-lynched-in-ups-bulandshahr-family-blames-hindu-yuva-vahini-1688927
[xxv] https://indianexpress.com/elections/lynching-accused-in-front-row-yogi-adityanath-says-at-dadri-sp-govt-tried-to-curb-our-emotions-5652017/
[xxvi] https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/lynching-hindu-muslim-mob-violence-kashmir-jharkhand-984791-2017-06-27
[xxvii] https://thepolisproject.com/are-lynchings-apolitical/#.Xdl7TugzbIU
[xxviii] https://theprint.in/india/as-lynchings-increase-modi-govt-dawdles-on-central-law-that-sc-wanted-a-year-ago/255877/
[xxix] Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (1994) 4 SCC 260
[xxx] https://thewire.in/government/lynching-india-mob-violence-solution
[xxxi]https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/mob-lynching-government-sets-up-4-member-committee-to-suggest-legal framework/articleshow/65106290.cms?from=mdr
[xxxii] https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/curb-mob-lynchings-centre-says-it-has-issued-guidelines-states-112695
[xxxiii] Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another (2014) 8 SCC 273
[xxxiv] Mob Lynchings in India: Present and Future Prospects by Ashraya Singh- A018
[xxxv] Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others 2018 (5)
