Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently directed various states to file detailed affidavits in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) regarding the increase in mob lynching incidents. The PIL highlights the failure of states to adhere to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Tehseen Poonawalla case to prevent lynching and mob violence.

Arguments:

Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing NFIW, focused on the affidavits submitted by the States of Madhya Pradesh and Haryana. He argued that incidents of mob lynching were being misrepresented as normal accidents or fights, undermining the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in the Tehseen Poonawalla case. Pasha highlighted discrepancies between media reports and police accounts, pointing out instances where injuries caused during mob violence were not properly addressed through FIRs.

On behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, Advocate Nachiketa Josi explained that FIRs were registered under the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, while Justice BR Gavai questioned the lack of FIRs against the accused individuals. Similarly, Advocate Archana Pathak Dave, representing the State of Gujarat, raised concerns about the alleged religious bias in the petition.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court granted six weeks to states that had not yet filed affidavits to respond to the PIL, specifying the steps taken in cases of mob lynching mentioned in the petition. Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasized the need to address the issue impartially, irrespective of caste or religion. The court also sought clarification on the inclusion of specific incidents, including the murder of Kanhaiya Kumar in Udaipur, in the petition.