New Delhi:
In the Supreme Court, a petition was filed against mob lynching and mob violence by gau rakshars (Supreme Court on Mob Lynching Petition). The court refused to hear this petition. On this petition, a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice of Justice said on a petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women that we cannot monitor issues in various fields of the country by sitting in Delhi. In his view, this type of micro management by the Supreme Court will not be possible. The court has already issued a guideline in the Tehsin Poonawala verdict. These guidelines are binding on everyone. Each officer is bound to follow the instructions.
The Supreme Court said that if a person is distressed, according to the law, the competent court can be contacted. No equal instructions can be issued to the officers. Because it will take away the discretion to determine compensation. The court said that they feel that the petition seeking such omnipresent relief will not be in the interest of the victims. This petition, filed in the Supreme Court, demanded the intervention of the Supreme Court on the alleged increase in cases of lynching and mob violence, especially the alleged increase in ‘cow-deafing’ cases.
What did the Center say against the petition?
SG Tushar Mehta said that if a crime happens then it is the responsibility of the states. Now according to the central law, killing by the mob is a crime. The entire scenario has changed. On behalf of the petitioner, advocate Nizamuddin Pasha said
The issue is that when private persons are given police rights to seize vehicles and to catch people for smuggling cattle, then police rights are given to private agencies in this way. There is a need to look at the attitude of the state machinery and it has to be seen how shameless it is. Any monitoring of this court will help.
Demand for uniform compensation on mob lynching
The Supreme Court refused to demand an order on uniform compensation for the victims of mob lynching. The court said that it is the authority of the state and jurisdiction to decide compensation. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the petition, said that on the question of implementing the law, a petition should be filed in the High Court of those states, which have not implemented this law.
On behalf of the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that the Supreme Court has issued a guideline in the Tehsin Poonawala case.
- It has also been declared a crime under BNS
- Should the law be allowed to do its work
- People come to Supreme Court with different cases
- When the events occur, it is the duty of the state to ensure that it does not happen and then prosecute.
- Can personal matters to be noted in this court?
Demand for petitioner’s counsel from SC
The petitioner’s counsel said what can be done when the state governments do not register an FIR
It is emerging a pattern in the state. This Supreme Court said that in such a situation, the victim should first go to the appropriate authority. The situation is different in every state. If the Tahsin Poonawala verdict is not followed, then the victim also has legal measures. The Supreme Court also said that by sitting here, we cannot monitor all over the country and in our view this kind of monitoring by this court will not be possible. If a person is suffering, then the competent court can be contacted according to the law.
“Compensation is different in every case of mob lynching”
The Supreme Court said that what should be the appropriate compensation in cases of mob lynching, it will be different in every case and no equal instructions can be issued. Doing so would mean eliminating the discretion available with the authorities or the courts. For example, when a person suffers a simple injury and the other suffers a serious injury, the same compensation instruction will be unjust.
(Tagstotranslate) Supreme Court (T) Mob Lynching (T) Supreme Court Petition (T) Mob Lynching Guideine (T) Mob Lynching Case (T) Supreme Court (T) Supreme Court Case (T) Supreme Court petition
