MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Friday, 22 November 2024
Seeks response from Centre, six states

Supreme Court asks central government, six states to respond to plea on lynchings

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal says matter is serious and Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment is being violated with impunity

R. Balaji New Delhi Published 29.07.23, 06:37 AM
Kapil Sibal.

Kapil Sibal. File photo

The Supreme Court on Friday sought the response of the Centre and six states on a petition alleging rising incidents of lynching of Muslims despite the apex court guidelines issued in the 2018 Tehseen Poonawala case to curb the menace of vigilante justice.

Besides the Centre, notices were issued to Odisha, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana where the alleged incidents of lynching had happened in the last two months, according to petitioner National Federation of India Women.

ADVERTISEMENT

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the organisation, said the matter was serious and the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment was being violated with impunity.

“If your lordships tell me to go to the high court, nothing would happen. I would have to go to all these high courts. What would be the purpose as the victims may at the most get compensation of Rs 2 lakh after some 10 years. This is (lynching) happening despite the 2018 judgment (Tehseen Poonawala case),” Sibal told the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and J.B.Pardiwala.

The bench then issued the notices to the respondents for their reply.

The petition filed through advocate Sumita Hazarika has sought urgent intervention of the apex court “in view of the alarming rise in cases of lynchings and mob violence against Muslims despite clear guidelines and directions having been issued in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs Union of India & Others case after several incidents of lynchings done by cow vigilante groups”.

The petition added: “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, has been recognised by this court in several judgments including in Tehseen Poonawalla (supra).”

The petitioner cited the following incidents in support of the allegations:

On June 28, 2023, a 55-year-old truck driver named Jaharuddin was lynched by a mob in Bihar’s Saran district on suspicion of carrying beef.

This incident came on the heels of two separate incidents of lynching that took place in Nashik, Maharashtra. On June 24, Afan Ansari and Nasir Hussain were intercepted by a mob on suspicion of smuggling beef. The mob, while shouting “Jai Shree Ram”, assaulted them. Afan died while Nasir is undergoing treatment.

On June 8, a 23-year-old daily wage earner, Lukman Ansari, was lynched by members of the Rashtriya Bajrang Dal for transporting cows.

On June 17, a Hindu mob in Bhubaneshwar attacked two Muslim youths. The victims were restrained using ropes and made to chant “Jai Shri Ram”. They were also compelled to walk through piles of garbage.

On May 26, a bus carrying Haj pilgrims was attacked by a Hindutva mob in Rajasthan’s Kota. The mob pelted stones, injuring the driver, children and women onboard.

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT