Case Brief: Tehseen S. Poonawalla V Union Of India And Others | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Case: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v Union of India and Others

• Following incidents of lynching in Dadri, Jharkhand, and other places by cow protection groups, distressed activists brought writ petitions to the Apex Court.
• Social activist Tehseen Poonawalla filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against the Respondent States.
• Tushar Gandhi submitted a second PIL to address State responsibility for such mob incidents.
• A three-judge bench jointly heard the petitions.
• Citation: (2018) 9 SCC 501
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Presiding Judges: Dipak Misra, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar
• Theme: Cow Vigilantism and Lynching
• Subject: Constitutional Law

Issues in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v Union of India and Others

• Should the States and Centre develop immediate action plans against violent cow protection mobs?
  It is being questioned whether both the States and the Centre should collaborate to create prompt and effective strategies to address the menace posed by violent cow protection groups.
• Is it necessary for the States and Centre to issue directives for the removal of violent social media content posted by these groups?
  Another point of contention revolves around whether there should be explicit instructions from the States and Centre to eliminate any violent content propagated by these factions on social media platforms.
• Are certain sections of acts safeguarding cows, like 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, unconstitutional?
  Debates arise on the constitutionality of specific provisions within acts aimed at protecting cows, such as those mentioned in Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka laws.

Important Arguments

Petitioners

• Mr. Hegde's 2016 petition emphasized the importance of following legal procedures rather than taking action based solely on suspicion of a crime. He highlighted the need for remedial, punitive, and preventive measures.
• Ms. Indira Jaising stressed that law enforcement agencies of states should register FIRs promptly to prevent such incidents. She advocated for highway patrolling and pointed out that according to Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution, the Central Government is responsible for issuing directions to maintain cooperative federalism.
• She also mentioned that both the State and the Centre have a duty to protect minorities from being unfairly targeted due to misinformation and hatred. Stringent actions should be taken, especially when approached by family members.

Respondents

• Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General, clarified that the Union of India does not support vigilantes and considers these incidents to be a state matter.
• The States of Gujarat and Jharkhand asserted that appropriate legal actions have already been taken against those involved in these incidents.

Judgement: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v Union of India and Others

• CJI Dipak Misra delivered a ruling emphasizing that private individuals should not engage in vigilante justice.
• The judgment highlighted the importance of respecting the rule of law, stating that all citizens must abide by legal directives.
• Interim orders were issued for the appointment of Nodal officers and the implementation of Highway patrolling to maintain public safety.
• State Governments were instructed to investigate the root causes of communal tensions and promote values of tolerance to preserve diversity and unity.
• Lynching was deemed a direct violation of the Constitution and the principles of the rule of law.
• The Court affirmed that citizens' rights under Article 21 should not be unlawfully infringed upon.
• The judgment did not address the issue of the constitutionality of certain actions.

Guidelines to Curb Vigilantism

• Preventive Measures:
  • State Governments should appoint nodal officers to oversee vigilante activities.
  • Police are instructed to disperse mobs using the powers granted under Section 129 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • FIRs should be initiated under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code to address communal disharmony.
  • Central and State governments must prevent the dissemination of misinformation and educate the public on the severe legal repercussions of lynching and mob violence.
• Remedial Measures:
  • In the event of any vigilante incidents, FIRs must be promptly filed, and the Nodal officer should be notified.
  • Efficient handling of cases through fast track courts, implementation of victim compensation schemes, and provision of free legal aid to victims.
• Punitive Measures:
  • Departmental action is to be taken against officers who fail to comply with the prescribed measures, considering it as a case of misconduct or negligence.
  • The disciplinary process should be concluded within six months to ensure accountability.

In conclusion, the Court recommended that Parliament establish a distinct criminal offense for lynching, accompanied by appropriate penalties to combat this social issue effectively.

Present Status

• Continuing relevance: The Court is actively overseeing the enforcement of the guidelines, mandating that all States submit compliance reports. Non-compliant states faced reproach during the initial post-judgment hearing.
• Enforcement Oversight: States failing to provide compliance reports were given deadlines and warned of severe consequences.

Conclusion

Following a lynching incident in Alwar, the Supreme Court swiftly initiated contempt proceedings due to perceived negligence. However, despite the urgency demonstrated in this case, justice for victims like Akhlaq remains delayed. While states like Rajasthan and Manipur have passed Anti-Lynching Bills, their enactment awaits the President's consent. Despite the Supreme Court's imposition of strict directives to address the issue, challenges persist in the implementation of these measures.