New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning incidents of mob violence and lynching by "cow vigilantes" under the pretext of protecting cows from smuggling and slaughter.
A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated that it is 'impractical' for the apex court, sitting in Delhi, to micromanage such incidents as the factors leading to them vary across states.
"Even in the demolition matter (regarding properties demolished as punitive measures), we allowed parties to approach competent authorities. Every State has different circumstances. In some States, beef consumption is a regular practice," Justice Gavai remarked.
The Court reiterated that its detailed directions in the Tehseen Poonawalla case for addressing mob lynching incidents are binding on all authorities. It emphasized that individuals can pursue legal remedies if these directives are ignored.
"However, sitting in Delhi, we cannot monitor issues in different parts of the country. Such micromanagement is not feasible. Aggrieved persons should approach the competent court under the law," the Court stated in its order.
The Bench also declined to assess the validity of cow protection laws enacted by various states, holding that such issues must be addressed before the respective High Courts.
'It would be incorrect for this Court to test the validity of 13 different State laws in a generic plea. The concerned State's High Court must be approached," the Court held.
The PIL was filed by the National Federation of Indian Women, with advocate Nizamuddin Pasha arguing that the Court's earlier directions against mob lynching were being violated, especially following the introduction of stringent cow protection laws in certain States.
"When private individuals are given police powers to seize vehicles and apprehend people for cattle smuggling, it raises concerns. State machinery needs to be scrutinized for its brazen conduct," Pasha submitted.
Justice Gavai questioned whether such individual cases should be brought before the Supreme Court and pointed out that incidents of criminal acts must be handled by State authorities.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted that the Central government, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, has introduced provisions criminalizing mob lynching.
"The entire legal landscape has changed," Mehta said.
The Court concluded that uniform criteria for compensation to victims of mob lynching cannot be prescribed as each case differs based on the severity of injuries.
"As to what should be adequate compensation will differ from case to case. Issuing uniform directions would eliminate the discretion available to authorities or courts. A blanket order is not in the interest of victims," the Court reasoned.
The case was subsequently closed, with the Court advising petitioners to pursue remedies through State courts and authorities.
