NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a PIL, which alleged spiraling incidents of violence against Muslims by cow vigilante groups, saying it has already laid down mandatory guidelines for police to act against incidents of mob-lynching and that aggrieved persons must move jurisdictional High Courts for relief.
“Sitting in Delhi we cannot monitor incidents happening in different areas of various states of the country. Such micromanagement is not feasible,” said a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran.
However, it said that infraction of the guidelines to deal with incidents of mob-lynching laid down in the 2018 judgment in
Tehseen Poonawalla case
, which is bound to be implemented in letter and spirit by police and all other concerned authorities, then the aggrieved parties can move the concerned HCs seeking redressal of their grievances.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the Bhartiya Nyaya Samhita has incorporated mob-lynching as a specific offence and it is the responsibility of the states to implement the criminal laws. “For every incident happening in the nook and corner of the country, a Pil cannot be filed directly in the Supreme Court bypassing the jurisdictional HCs,” he said.
Appearing for petitioner National Federation of Indian Women, the women’s wing of CPI, advocate Nizamuddin Pasha told the bench that after the petitioner pointe out large number of incidents of cow vigilante groups targeting Muslims and the police registering cases against Muslims and not against those who indulged in violence, the court had sought affidavits from all states. The responses show non-implementation of Tehseen Poonawala guidelines.
The bench turned to the other plea of the petitioner demanding minimum uniform compensation for victims of mob-lynching. It refused to do so saying the compensation cannot be the same for those suffering minor and grievous injuries. Fixing a minimum uniform compensation would take away the discretion of the courts and authorities to provide adequate amounts to victims, it said.
The petitioner had also challenged provisions in laws enacted by 13 states which authorize even private persons to inspect premises on the suspicion of it being used for cow slaughter or cattle smuggling. It said statutory duties cannot be delegated to private people.
However, the bench said each statutory provision must be tested individually and that the SC cannot enter an exercise for generic testing of validity of all these laws. Those aggrieved by the provisions these laws would have to move concerned state HC to challenge their validity.
