Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India & Ors. (2018)
Case Overview:
- Name: Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India & Ors.
- Date of Judgment: July 17, 2018
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
- Type of Case: Writ Petition
- Equivalent Citations: AIR 2018 SC 3354, (2018) 9 SCC 501, [2018] 9 SCR 291, 2018 4 AWC 4307 SC, 2018 INSC 617, 2018 (9) SCALE 4, 2019 (3) SCJ 117
- Provisions and Statutes Involved: Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 129 and 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Parties:
- Petitioner: Tehseen S. Poonawalla
- Respondents: Union of India & Ors.
Facts of the Case: Tehseen Poonawalla, a social activist, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of animal protection laws in six states—Gujarat, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. He claimed these laws contained provisions that allowed cow vigilante groups to act with impunity, leading to several incidents of mob lynching and violence. Specific cases highlighted included:
- Hanging of two men in Balumath forests, Jharkhand
- Flogging of Dalits in Una, Gujarat
- Mob lynching of Pehlu Khan in Alwar, Rajasthan
- Mob lynching of Mohammed Akhlaq in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh
Poonawalla argued that certain provisions of these state laws provided undue protection to individuals involved in vigilante violence, allowing them to evade legal consequences.
Issues Raised:
- Whether the states and the Centre can take immediate action against cow protection groups involved in violence.
- Whether the court should direct the removal of violent content from media platforms.
- Whether existing provisions that protect vigilante activities are constitutionally valid.
Arguments:
- Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Mr. Sanjay R. Hedge: Emphasized that vigilantes should not take the law into their own hands. Advocated for law enforcement agencies to prevent mob violence and cited the need for preventive, remedial, and punitive measures.
- Ms. Indira Jaising: Argued for prompt action by law enforcement, highlighting the rise in mob violence across several states. Advocated for Central Government intervention under Articles 256 and 257 of the Indian Constitution to ensure state compliance with law enforcement.
- Respondent’s Arguments:
- Ms. Hemantika Wahi (Gujarat): Stated that Gujarat had already arrested and charged individuals involved in lynching incidents.
- Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh (Jharkhand): Indicated that legal actions had been taken against lynching perpetrators.
- Mr. Ranjit Kumar (Union of India): Asserted that the Union Government did not support vigilante activities and that law and order was a state subject.
- Mr. Tushar Mehta (Additional Solicitor General): Proposed the appointment of Nodal Officers in each district to oversee and prevent vigilante violence.
Judgment: The Supreme Court, addressing the sensitive issue of vigilantism and mob violence, issued comprehensive guidelines categorized into preventive, remedial, and punitive measures.
Key Observations:
- State Responsibility: The Court emphasized that the state has a fundamental duty to maintain law and order and prevent private individuals from taking the law into their own hands. Vigilantism, regardless of its motive, is unacceptable.
- Citizen’s Role: Citizens have the right to report crimes but should not act as law enforcers or adjudicators.
- Judicial Authority: Only courts have the authority to adjudicate criminal matters and decide on punishment.
Guidelines Issued:
- Preventive Measures:
- Ensure effective law enforcement to prevent mob violence.
- States must appoint senior police officers as Nodal Officers to oversee vigilante activities and enforce law and order.
- Remedial Measures:
- Immediate lodging of FIRs upon receiving information about lynching incidents.
- Nodal Officers to protect victims and monitor investigations, ensuring timely filing of charge sheets.
- Punitive Measures:
- Disciplinary actions against officials who fail to act against or investigate lynching incidents.
- Officials found negligent in their duties will face both disciplinary and legal actions.
Additional Recommendations:
- Legislative Action: The Court recommended that Parliament create specific penal provisions for lynching to deter potential offenders and uphold the rule of law.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India & Ors. underscores the need for a coordinated effort by both Central and State governments to address and curb mob violence. The Court’s guidelines aim to ensure accountability, prevent future incidents, and uphold constitutional values of tolerance, unity, and harmony.
