Tag: #supremecourt

Mob Lynching

The word ‘lynching’ is originated in mid-18th century America. Origin of ‘lynching’ is traced by Willam Lynch who lived in Virginia in the U.S. Back then lynching referred to vigilante justice meted out to black people. Before the America Civil War brought an end to slavery, several instances of black slaves being lynched where reported in the U.S. In some cases whites were also lynched for opposing slavery of black people.

What is Mob Lynching?

‘lynching’ shall mean any act or series of acts of violence, whether spontaneous or planned, committed to inflicting extrajudicial punishment or an act of protest and caused by the desire of a mob to enforce upon a person or group of persons any perceived legal societal and cultural norms/ prejudices.

‘mob’ shall means a group of two or more individuals, assembled with an intension of lynching.

Law related to Mob Lynching

In India there was no specific act which describe the punishment concerned with the heinous crime of mob lynching. Recently we came across many such cases of mob lynching which was shocking for the whole nation. This kind of cases comes to limelight when it is shared on social media and I think that’s the worst part of it. Then we share the post and make it viral after all this the ministers, police start investigation of the case and then the action is taken if any.

There are states like Manipur, Rajasthan which has passed an act of Mob Lynching in which the role of police, punishments, trails are all explained in detail manner.

There was a PIL filed in 2016 on which in 2018 three bench of Judges have issued a guidelines for prevention of mob violence and lynching

 A. Preventive Measures.

 (i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by one of the DSP rank officers in the district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They shall constitute a special task force so as to procure intelligence reports about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.

(ii) The State Government shall forthwith identify Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say, in the last five years. The process of identification should be done within a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment; as such time period is sufficient to get the task done in today’s fast world of data collection.

(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers of the concerned districts for ensuring that the Officer In-charge of the Police Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of mob violence within their jurisdiction comes to their notice.

(iv) The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular meetings (at least once a month) with the local intelligence units in the district along with all Station House Officers of the district so as to identify the existence of the tendencies of vigilantism, mob violence or lynching in the district and take steps to prohibit instances of dissemination of offensive material through different social media platforms or any other means for inciting such tendencies. The Nodal Officer shall also make efforts to eradicate hostile environment against any community or caste which is targeted in such incidents.

(v) The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall take regular review meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall bring to the notice of the DGP any inter district co-ordination issues for devising a strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence related issues at the State level.

(vi) It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of CrPC, which, in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or wreak the havoc of lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise.

(vii) The Home Department of the Government of India must take initiative and work in co-ordination with the State Governments for sensitizing the law enforcement agencies and by involving all the stake holders to identify the measures for prevention of mob violence and lynching against any caste or community and to implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the Rule of Law.

(viii) The Director General of Police shall issue a circular to the Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling in the sensitive areas keeping in view the incidents of the past and the intelligence obtained by the office of the Director General. It singularly means that there should be seriousness in patrolling so that the anti-social elements involved in such crimes are discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law thus fearing to even think of taking the law into their own hands.

(ix) The Central and the State Governments should broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms including the official websites of the Home Department and Police of the States that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the law.

(x) It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well as the State Governments to take steps to curb and stop dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other material on various social media platforms which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.

(xi) The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A of IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.

(xii) The Central Government shall also issue appropriate directions/advisories to the State Governments which should reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the measures to be taken.

B. Remedial Measures.

(i) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of lynching mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional police station shall immediately cause to lodge an FIR, without any undue delay, under the relevant provisions of IPC and/or other provisions of law.

(ii) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate the Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure that there is no further harassment of the family members of the victim(s).

(iii) Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure that the investigation is carried out effectively and the charge sheet in such cases is filed within the statutory period from the date of registration of the FIR or arrest of the accused, as the case may be.

(iv) The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section 357A of CrPC within one month from the date of this judgment. In the said scheme for computation of compensation, the State Governments shall give due regard to the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and education and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical expenses. The said compensation scheme must also have a provision for interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of the deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob violence/lynching.

(v) The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically tried by designated court/Fast Track courts earmarked for that purpose in each district. Such courts shall hold trial of the case on a day to day basis. The trial shall preferably be concluded within six months from the date of taking cognizance. We may hasten to add that this direction shall apply to even pending cases. The District Judge shall assign those cases as far as possible to one jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious disposal thereof. It shall be the duty of the State Governments and the Nodal Officers in particular to see that the prosecuting agency strictly carries out its role in appropriate furtherance of the trial.

(vi) To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and lynching, upon conviction of the accused person(s), the trial court must ordinarily award maximum sentence as provided for various offences under the provisions of the IPC.

(vii) The courts trying the cases of mob violence and lynching may, on application by a witness or by the public prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such measures, as it deems fit, for protection and for concealing the identity and address of the witness.

(viii) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice of any court proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be heard at the trial in respect of applications such as bail, discharge, release and parole filed by the accused persons. They shall also have the right to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

 (ix) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or she so chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice from amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Current situation

There are guidelines made by the Supreme Court but it is followed by none. Making videos about mob lynching in public, showing that type of videos to the society through social media, newspaper, news channels is just promoting this kind of things. Its better we make people understand a guidelines made by the Supreme Court through various sources this will encourage the people to support Indian Judiciary and also work accordingly to the said guidelines.

We all are aware of Palghar Lynching case where two Sadhus and one driver killed by the villagers. As the people of the village assumed them to be child kidnapper who are engaged in organ harvest business. This also came across us through social media and then it takes a political turn. But no one unfolded the guidelines which was given by the apex court THAT’S THE CURRENT REALITY. News channel, social media do not explain the solution of the problem they just exaggerate it in every manner possible.

Fathima Beevi – A True Inspiration

Right to Education is the Fundamental Right given by our Indian Constitution. Is this right is effectively used in our society? No, many of the children are deprived of education. The ratio of girls are more as compared to boys. As per our Indian mentality what is the need to educate girls? They should learn doing household works and be at home. In earlier days, it was a story of every other family. But some stories are different so their stories become an inspiration for others. One such story is of The First Lady Judge of Supreme Court she is Fathima Beevi. She was also the first Muslim woman in Higher Judiciary and the first woman to become a Supreme Court Justice in an Asian country. Fathima Beevi was born to Annaveettil Meerasahib and mother Khadeeja Beevi. They had six daughters and two sons. Out of the eight children, Fathima was the eldest. In a society where women were not given access to education, her parents encouraged the kids to pursue their education and career.

Initially, she completed her graduation in Bachelor of Science, later she completed her Law Degree from the prestigious Govt. Law College in Trivandrum, Kerala. She was inspired by Ms. Anna Chandy, who was the First Female Judge in India who happened to be from her hometown. She passed her law with a gold medal being one of the five women students in a class, upholding values taught by her parents. In 1950, she enrolled as an advocate in a district court at Kollam, the same year Honourable Supreme Court was established.

After eight years of legal practice at Kollam District Court, she cleared the public exam to become a Munsif. In the year 1972, she rose to the rank of Chief Judicial Magistrate, later in 1974 got promoted as District Sessions Judge. In 1983 she was appointed as the High Court Judge of Kerala. Finally, in 1989 she was inducted as the First Female Judge in the Supreme Court, owing to her excellent caliber and expertise in the legal profession. After her retirement, she served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission for four years.

On the 25th of January 1997, she was appointed as the Governor of Tamil Nadu by the then President of India, Shankar Dayal Sharma. A major decision she took as the governor was rejecting the mercy petitions filed by the four condemned prisoners in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. In 2001 she invited AIADMK General Secretary J Jayalalitha to take oath as the chief minister, a decision that was criticised because even though Jayalalitha’s party had received the simple majority Jaylalitha had been barred from contesting in the elections because of her conviction in a corruption case. However, Fatima Beevi maintains that it was not a spontaneous decision, she had consulted the then sitting judges of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice of India. Jaylalitha had been acquitted and had no conviction when appointed by Justice Beevi. Following this, the Union Cabinet decided to recommend the President to recall the Governor for having failed to discharge her constitutional obligation. Justice Fatima Beevi decided to resign, thus her eventful term as the Governor of Tamil Nadu came to a controversial end in 2001. Eventually, the Supreme Court of India overturned Fatima Beevi’s decision to appoint Jayalalithaa as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. 

After her retirement from the Supreme Court in 1992 Beevi served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission (1993)  and the Chairman of Kerala Commission for Backward Classes(1993). She received Hon. D Litt and Mahila Shiromani Award in 1990. She was also awarded the  Bharat Jyoti Award and the US-India Business Council (USIBC) Life Time Achievement Award. As the Governor of Tami Nadu, she also served as the Chancellor of Madras University. In 2002, the left parties discussed the nomination of Fathima Beevi as the President of India, however, the NDA Government proposed the name of Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam.

Representation of women in higher Judiciary is quite nominal even till date. The country has only a little over 10% of women in the judicial field at that time when women were not given an equal chance to be part of the Judiciary. She is an advocate of gender equality and has mentioned that there was a need to elevate the representation of women to judgeships. She has always been vocal about the unequal treatment women have to face in the Judiciary.  Fathima Beevi continues to be a role model for every woman aspiring to enter the historically male dominated space of the courtroom, and let us hope to see a significant increase in women’s representation in higher judiciary in future.