DIPAK MISRA, A. M. KHANWILKAR, D. Y. CHANDRACHUD
Tehseen S. Poonawalla – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
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:
Social media monitoring and regulation to prevent the spread of hate speech and inflammatory material.
Remedial Measures:
Protection measures for witnesses and victims during proceedings, including confidentiality and legal aid.
Punitive Measures:
Accountability for neglect or misconduct by law enforcement or administrative officers, with actions to be concluded swiftly.
Legal and Social Principles:
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:
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
Shakti Vahini v. Union of India
Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Mohd. Haroon v. Union of India
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram
St. Stephen`s College v. University of Delhi
Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of U.P.
State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai Singh Yadav
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.
Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.