New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has stated that it cannot directly oversee criminal prosecutions related to mob lynchings and communal violence across various states, emphasizing that such matters should be handled by local courts and authorities.
A Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai made this observation while hearing a petition filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, which raised concerns over the rising incidents of mob violence, particularly attacks by cow vigilantes in the name of protecting cattle from smuggling and slaughter.
Referring to its landmark 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated that guidelines for preventing and investigating hate crimes must be implemented at the state level. It advised victims to seek redress through proper legal channels.
The petitioners had sought a uniform compensation framework for victims of mob lynching. However, the court rejected this demand, asserting that compensation should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
“For example, a victim with minor injuries cannot be awarded the same compensation as someone who has suffered serious harm,” the Bench noted. It added that imposing a uniform structure would limit the ability of courts and authorities to fairly determine compensation.
The court also declined to examine the constitutionality of various cow protection laws enacted by different states, directing petitioners to approach the jurisdictional High Courts instead. “A generic petition cannot challenge 13 different legislations or notifications issued by various states,” Justice Gavai clarified.
During the hearing, Advocate Nizam Pasha, representing the petitioners, argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier guidelines against mob lynching were being openly violated, particularly in states with stringent cow protection laws.
He pointed out that these laws had indirectly encouraged violence by cow vigilantes and urged the Supreme Court to ensure stronger judicial oversight. “Thirteen states have these laws, and they are being misused to justify mob attacks,” Pasha contended.
The Bench responded that it was beyond the Supreme Court’s capacity to monitor individual incidents across the country. “From Delhi, we cannot micromanage cases happening in different regions,” the Bench stated, emphasizing that it was the responsibility of state governments to prevent and prosecute such crimes.
Pasha further highlighted that in several cases, state authorities were unwilling to file complaints against mob lynching perpetrators, making it difficult for victims to seek justice.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government, informed the court that a specific law criminalizing mob lynching had already been introduced under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court closed the plea, reiterating that it had already issued comprehensive guidelines in the Tehseen Poonawalla case to curb mob lynching. It emphasized that all states must strictly adhere to these directives and that victims had legal remedies available if the guidelines were not implemented effectively.
