Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India recently disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) against the rising incidents of mob lynching, particularly in cases involving cow vigilantism. The case, National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 719 of 2023), sought strict implementation of the guidelines laid down in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), where the apex court had issued detailed directives to curb mob violence and lynching. A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran ruled that the directions in Tehseen Poonawalla are binding on all authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution and reiterated that compliance issues should be raised before jurisdictional High Courts instead of burdening the Supreme Court. The Court also rejected the plea for a uniform compensation scheme for victims, stating that compensation must be case-specific and proportionate to the injury. The PIL, pending since 2023, had previously led the Court to issue warnings to five states—Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Bihar—for their failure to submit counter-affidavits. The petition was ultimately dismissed, with the Court granting liberty to aggrieved parties to seek redressal before competent courts.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Nizam Pasha, contended that despite the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla, mob lynching and cow vigilantism had continued unabated across various states. The petition cited multiple incidents where Muslim individuals were lynched or assaulted on mere suspicion of cow smuggling or beef consumption. Specific instances referenced included the lynching of two Muslim men in Bihar’s Saran and Maharashtra’s Nashik, an attack on a Muslim daily wager in Madhya Pradesh by Bajrang Dal members, and a violent mob attack on Hajj pilgrims in Kota, Rajasthan. NFIW argued that state authorities had failed to take meaningful preventive and punitive measures despite clear Supreme Court directions, leading to a climate of fear and impunity for perpetrators. The petition emphasised that mob violence was not merely a law-and-order issue but a systematic campaign fueled by misinformation spread via public events, social media, and news channels. It sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union and state governments to ensure compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla guidelines and to create a uniform compensation scheme for victims of mob lynching. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the validity of 13 state enactments/notifications that allegedly conferred police-like powers on private entities and organisations to check cattle smuggling.

The Union of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, countered the PIL by asserting that mob lynching is now a distinct criminal offence under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which prescribes strict legal consequences for such crimes. The government argued that it had taken substantial measures to prevent and punish mob violence, rendering the PIL redundant. Further, the Solicitor General emphasised that the Supreme Court had already provided exhaustive guidelines in Tehseen Poonawalla, which state authorities were duty-bound to follow. The government also contended that issuing uniform compensation for lynching victims was impractical since the severity of injuries varied widely, requiring a case-by-case determination. On the challenge to state laws allowing private individuals to inspect vehicles and premises for cattle smuggling, the Centre submitted that such provisions must be assessed independently for each state and could not be adjudicated in a single omnibus petition before the Supreme Court. The government further pointed out that individual grievances regarding non-compliance with Tehseen Poonawalla should be addressed through the respective High Courts rather than expecting the Supreme Court to monitor every incident nationwide.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, after considering both sides, dismissed the PIL while reaffirming that its 2018 judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla remains binding on all authorities. The bench stated that it was neither feasible nor desirable for the Court to oversee compliance with its directives across different states while sitting in Delhi. It advised aggrieved parties to seek redress before jurisdictional High Courts if they believed state authorities were failing in their duty. The Court also observed that the PIL was too broad and sought omnibus reliefs that could not be effectively implemented through a single judgment. On the issue of compensation, the bench ruled that determining a “minimum uniform amount” for victims of mob violence was neither just nor practical. It explained that the extent of injuries in lynching cases varied significantly—from minor wounds to fatalities—making it inappropriate to mandate a one-size-fits-all compensation policy. The Court stressed that compensation must be decided based on the specific circumstances of each case, with due regard to judicial discretion. Addressing the challenge to 13 state laws that allegedly empowered private entities to police cattle transportation, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a generic challenge. It clarified that any person aggrieved by such laws must approach the relevant High Court to test the validity of the specific enactment or notification in question. The Court acknowledged that it had previously taken a strong stance against mob violence but insisted that systematic enforcement of the law must happen through the respective state mechanisms rather than Supreme Court micromanagement. Finally, the Court took note of the Centre’s submission that mob lynching had been criminalised under the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and urged state authorities to ensure strict implementation of these provisions. The PIL was thus disposed of, with liberty granted to victims and affected individuals to seek relief from appropriate legallegal forum.