Difference between revisions of "TEHSEEN S. POONAWALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2018)"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 138231
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "The Supreme court in its judgement in the legal battle of Tehseen S. Poonawala Vs. Union of India condemned the incidents of lynching and mob violence against the minorities....")
(No difference)

Revision as of 14:28, 1 July 2020

The Supreme court in its judgement in the legal battle of Tehseen S. Poonawala Vs. Union of India condemned the incidents of lynching and mob violence against the minorities.

The judgement was passed by a three judge led bench including the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, A.M. khanwilkar, and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and the Bench asked the parliament to pass a law that should establish lynching as a punishable offence and that this was important to protect the ‘pularlistic social fabric’ of the country. They also said that such law should be effective in a sense that it instills a sense of fear amongst the prepetors. The court believed that the growing cases of mob lynching is shocking and that the government should see the judgement as ‘clarion call’ towards strengthening the social order.

The judgement laid down certain suggestion which have tried to reduce the number of such cases to a certain extent- One such method was suggested by learned counsel Ms. Indira Jaising which was regarding police patrol in sensitive areas. This was important because in most cases the victim or their families have reported a delay in arrival of the police and she believed that effective deployment of police personnel could have prevented the crime.

The court also suggested that the parliament shall create a specialized offence for mob lynching and allocate punishment accordingly. However, The idea of the creation of a special law seems far from reality since the centre was not interested in implementing court’s suggestion.

While all along this, the Supreme Court  was unable to provide a concrete definition for mob lynching and this has allowed the parliament to start an endless debate on its definition and its constituents, punishment, etc and due to this absence mob lynching is being dealt in general manner under Section 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (causing voluntary hurt), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons) and 149 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), 1860. 

The guidelines of supreme court have also been neglected as the centre and the state governments have failed to follow the direction to broadcast on radio and television that lynching and mob violence of any kind would attract severe consequences under the law. The court also mentioned compensatory scheme and free legal aid to the victim or the relatives of the victim if he or she chooses to engage engage any advocate of his/her choice from amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel. In reality this doesn’t happen ,for instance Pehlu khan’s family is barely surviving due to the financial drainage of their want of justice.

On July 26, 2019, the bench comprising the former chief justice, Ranjan Gogoi , and justice Deepak Gupta sought response from the centre and 10 states on grounds of petition that alleged that the judgement of the court was not implemented.

Therefore it can be said that mob lynching is a crime that can easily escape the justice system and this has also got highlighted in the international forum and as the apex court rightly pointed out that the apathy and the numbness of the spectators and inefficiency in implementation of the law and order in the entire country has led to anarchy and lawlessness and the only way out is to adopt a zero- tolerance approach towards such a crime.

[1] [2]