IMPORTANT POINTS
Appointment of a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal Officer in each district.
State Governments to 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.
Officer In-charge of the Police Stations of the identified areas to be extra cautious if any instance of mob violence within their jurisdiction comes to their notice.
The Nodal Officer 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.
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.
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.
If it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of lynching or 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.
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).
Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored by the Nodal Officer.
The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section 357A of CrPC.
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 (including pending cases) shall preferably be concluded within six months from the date of taking cognizance.
The trial court must ordinarily award maximum sentence as provided for various offences under the provisions of the IPC.
Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of the district administration has failed to comply with the aforesaid directions in order to prevent and/or investigate and/or facilitate expeditious trial of any crime of mob violence and lynching, the same shall be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which appropriate action must be taken against him/her and not limited to departmental action under the service rules. The departmental action shall be taken to its logical conclusion preferably within six months by the authority of the first instance.
The States have to take disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Rule of law – Mob violence and lynching – Hate crimes – Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic mindset stifles freedom of thought and expression – Tolerance should be fostered and practised and not allowed to be diluted in any manner – Right to life and liberty is paramount – Unity in diversity – Unity of citizens, and not intolerance, necessary precondition for survival. (Para 21, 23, 32)
       (2015) 3 SCC 467; 2018 (5) SCALE 51; (2011) 7 SCC 547; (2014) 5 SCC 252; (2016) 9 SCC 682; (1989) 2 SCC 574; (1992) 1 SCC 558; (1997) 4 SCC 606; (2004) 4 SCC 684; (1976) 4 SCC 213 – Relied upon
       1976 EHRR 737 – Referred
       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 41-A r/w Article 21, Constitution of India – Law provides for arrest and investigation and consequential trial – These rights of citizens cannot be destroyed in an unlawful manner – Every citizen should express loyalty to law and the legal procedure – No one entitled to take the law into his own hands – No core group can punish a person by ascribing any justification – Law does not empower any one to authorize himself to behave as the protector of law and impose punishment as per his choice and fancy – Citizens’ only right is to inform the crime – Guidelines issued. (Para 34, 38)
       (1997) 1 SCC 416; (1994) 4 SCC 260; (1993) 2 SCC 746; (1995) 4 SCC 262; 2018 (5) SCALE 51; (2014) 8 SCC 273; (2014) 11 SCC 477 – Relied upon
       (C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404; 471 U.S. 261 (1985) – Referred
       (c Administrative law – State directed to take disciplinary action against officials who – Did not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or – Did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits after occurrence of the incident. (Para 40)
       (2011) 6 SCC 405 – Relied upon
       (d) Administration of justice – Rule of law – Mob lynching – Parliament recommended to enact a special law creating a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. (Para 43)
       Facts of the case:
       This case raises issues pertaining to cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching or targeted violence and commission of offences affecting the human body and against private and public property by mobs under the garb of self-assumed and self-appointed protectors of law.
       The petitioner, a social activist, has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for commanding the respondent-State Nos. 3 to 8 to take immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence; and further to issue a writ or direction to remove the violent contents from the social media uploaded and hosted by the said groups. There is also a prayer to declare Section 12 of the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954, Section 13 of the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976 and Section 15 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 as unconstitutional.
       Finding of the Court:
       Law does not empower any one to authorize himself to behave as the protector of law and impose punishment as per his choice and fancy.
       Result: Guidelines issued. Matter posted for 20th August, 2018.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. The legal document outlines a comprehensive framework for addressing incidents of lynching and mob violence, emphasizing the importance of rule of law, social harmony, and effective law enforcement measures. The key points include:

Preventive Measures:
Designation of senior police officers as Nodal Officers in each district to oversee and coordinate efforts.
Identification of districts, sub-divisions, and villages with recent reports of mob violence.
Regular meetings at district and state levels to monitor and analyze the existence of vigilante tendencies and to prevent dissemination of provocative content on social media.
Empowerment of police officers to disperse mobs exercising their authority under relevant law provisions.
Public awareness campaigns through media to condemn lynching and mob violence, highlighting legal consequences.
Social media monitoring and regulation to prevent the spread of hate speech and inflammatory material.
Remedial Measures:
Immediate lodging of FIRs upon occurrence of mob violence incidents, followed by prompt investigation and protection of victims’ families.
Establishment of victim compensation schemes, including interim relief, to provide timely support to victims or their families.
Specific and expeditious trials for cases of lynching and mob violence, with trials to be completed within a defined period, and maximum sentences awarded in accordance with law.
Protection measures for witnesses and victims during proceedings, including confidentiality and legal aid.
Punitive Measures:
Disciplinary action against officials who fail to prevent, investigate, or prosecute mob violence cases adequately, including departmental and criminal proceedings.
Accountability for neglect or misconduct by law enforcement or administrative officers, with actions to be concluded swiftly.
Legal and Social Principles:
Emphasis on the rule of law, condemning extrajudicial actions, and reinforcing that no individual or group has authority to punish or take law into their own hands.
Reinforcement of the constitutional values of tolerance, unity in diversity, and secularism.
Recognition that mob violence undermines democratic institutions and constitutional rights, particularly the right to life and liberty.
The importance of fostering social harmony, respect for diversity, and countering hate crimes and intolerance.
Legislative Recommendations:
The Court recommends that Parliament consider enacting a specific law creating a separate offence for lynching, with appropriate punishments, to serve as a deterrent.
Implementation and Oversight:
Regular review and monitoring of measures by police and administrative authorities.
Filing of compliance reports to ensure adherence to directives.
Coordination between central and state governments to strengthen efforts against mob violence and vigilantism.

These points collectively aim to prevent, respond to, and punish acts of mob violence, while reinforcing the principles of justice, constitutional morality, and social cohesion.

JUDGMENT :

Dipak Misra, CJI.

Law, enacted for the benefit of the society by conferring rights on the citizens and to regulate social behaviour in many a sphere, is required to be implemented by the law enforcing agencies and the citizens are duty bound to follow the law treating it as sacred. Law has to be regarded as the foundation of a civilized society. The primary goal of law is to have an orderly society where the citizenry dreams for change and progress is realized and the individual aspiration finds space for expression of his/her potential. In such an atmosphere while every citizen is entitled to enjoy the rights and interest bestowed under the constitutional and statutory law, he is also obligated to remain obeisant to the command of law. It has been stated in Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others, (2015) 3 SCC 467, “the law, the mightiest sovereign in a civilized society”. The majesty of law cannot be sullied simply because an individual or a group generate the attitude that they have been empowered by the principles set out in law to take its enforcement into their own hands and gradually become law unto themselves and punish the violator on their own assumption and in the manner in which they deem fit. They forget that the administration of law is conferred on the law enforcing agencies and no one is allowed to take law into his own hands on the fancy of his “shallow spirit of judgment”. Just as one is entitled to fight for his rights in law, the other is entitled to be treated as innocent till he is found guilty after a fair trial. No act of a citizen is to be adjudged by any kind of community under the guise of protectors of law. It is the seminal requirement of law that an accused is booked under law and is dealt with in accordance with the procedure without any obstruction so that substantive justice is done. No individual in his own capacity or as a part of a group, which within no time assumes the character of a mob, can take law into his/their hands and deal with a person treating him as guilty. That is not only contrary to the paradigm of established legal principles in our legal system but also inconceivable in a civilized society that respects the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. And, needless to say, such ideas and conceptions not only create a dent in the majesty of law but are also absolutely obnoxious.

2. It is worthy to note that the reliefs sought in all the writ petitions have commonality, although the expression of language as well as the width of the prayer is slightly different. What really emanates as the pivotal issue requiring our contemplated consideration is the duty of this Court under the constitutional framework to deal with the primary grievance that pertains to cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching or, if we may say so, targeted violence and commission of offences affecting the human body and against private and public property by mobs under the garb of self-assumed and self-appointed protectors of law.

3. We shall state the facts in brief, for there are asseverations with regard to numerous incidents of lynching and mob violence which need not be specifically stated since we are going to issue certain directions covering the arena of preventive, remedial and punitive measures. We shall note the suggestions given by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel in one of the writ petitions. We may further state that we shall refer to the facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016.

4. The petitioner, a social activist, has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for commanding the respondent-State Nos. 3 to 8 to take immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence; and further to issue a writ or direction to remove the violent contents from the social media uploaded and hosted by the said groups. There

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 719

Cases Referred (17)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009