A bench of justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran, hearing a petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW), observed that law enforcement and redressal mechanisms should be pursued through jurisdictional high courts rather than the apex court engaging in “micromanagement”.
Also Read: ‘Don’t erase, reload data’: Supreme Court to EC on plea seeking verification of EVMs
The petition, filed in the wake of increasing instances of mob violence allegedly linked to cow vigilantism, sought enforcement of the court’s 2018 ruling in the Tehseen Poonawalla case. This judgment laid down guidelines for curbing mob lynching, including appointing nodal officers in states and ensuring swift action against perpetrators. The petitioners contended that compliance with this ruling remained largely on paper.
Also Read: Supreme Court agrees to hear plea on ‘passive euthanasia’ for rabies patients
But the bench stressed that its directions issued in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment are already binding on all states under Article 141 of the Constitution, and that instances of non-compliance require to be brought to the notice of the jurisdictional high courts separately.
Also Read: No round-the-clock guards needed at ATMs, rules Supreme Court
“When directions are issued by this court, every court and authority is obligated to follow the directions of this court under Article 141…Sitting in Delhi, we cannot monitor incidents in different areas in different states of country. Such micromanagement would not be feasible,” stated the bench in its order.
During the proceedings, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, argued that the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment is already binding on all states. “If there is a violation, the law will take its own course. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) now categorises mob lynching as a distinct offence,” he submitted. The SG further pointed out that multiple applications have been filed on similar issues, whereas the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment remains the overarching directive.
Mob lynching, previously not a specific offence, is a penal offence under BNS – effective from July 2024, punishable by death or life imprisonment if committed by a group of five or more persons on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or other reasons.
Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing NFIW, countered that despite the binding precedent, states were failing to implement the court’s directives, leading to recurring instances of violence. He highlighted concerns regarding state government notifications that allegedly empowered private individuals to act as cow protectors, arguing that such measures embolden vigilantes and contribute to lawlessness.
The bench asked Pasha whether it was feasible for the Supreme Court to monitor compliance across all states, emphasising that local high courts were better placed to assess region-specific implementation. “Sitting in Delhi, should we decide on something happening in the Northeast or leave it to the concerned high court? Every state has different legal frameworks and factual circumstances,” the bench remarked.
On the issue of notifications granting powers to private entities for cow protection, the court clarified that such notifications could be legally challenged before jurisdictional high courts. “If states have conferred such powers, it can be challenged at the appropriate forum,” said the bench.
One of the petition’s key prayers sought a uniform compensation scheme for mob lynching victims, ensuring financial relief for injuries, damages and loss of life. However, the Supreme Court declined to issue “omnibus” directives, citing the need for a case-specific approach. “A simple injury cannot be equated with grievous hurt. Standardising compensation would take away discretion from courts and authorities in assessing individual cases,” the court observed.
The order noted that victims of mob lynching or their families could seek redressal under existing laws, including the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment and BNS provisions.
The Tehseen Poonawalla judgment remains the guiding framework on mob lynching. The 2018 ruling directed all states to appoint nodal officers of superintendent of police-rank to prevent such incidents, mandated automatic FIR registration under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code (promoting enmity between different groups), and required states to formulate compensation schemes for victims. With Tuesday’s ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively placed the onus on high courts to oversee compliance with anti-lynching directives.
