Necessity knows no law and a mob doesn’t have one. Mob violence is one of the most heinous crimes across the country which is increasing at a rapid rate. This is so because the perpetrators believe that they have the authority to take the law in their own hands. Black’s law dictionary defines lynch as ‘to kill somebody without legal authority, usually by hanging.’
In such cases, is the pleasure of the majority, which enjoys the pain of minority, like the felicific calculus in a negative sense? The recent incident, which took place in Maharashtra, was equally heinous and horrifying. Palghar, a town in Maharashtra with a population of 68,941, arrested 110 people were arrested for lynching three innocent people.
The Palghar Lynching
On 16th April 2020, three people, Sushil Giri Maharaj, Nilesh Telgane and Chikane Maharaj Kalpavrikshgiri, were brutally lynched by some of the resident villagers of Palghar, Maharashtra. Of the three persons who died, two of them were heading to a funeral and the other one was driving the car. Unfortunately, they never reached the funeral site because they were lynched prior to that. The incident took place at around late evening when Kalpvrush Giri and Sushil Giri, along with the driver, were attacked by a mob of around 80-85 people, who initially pelted stones on the vehicle that was passing through the village. Later, all three of them were beaten up with sticks which led to critical injuries.
The Palghar lynching was based on the same pattern of Nitlotpal Das and Abhijeet Nath, who in a shocking incident on June 8, 2018, were killed. While returning, their vehicle was stopped at Panjuri by a group of some villagers, who pulled them out and killed them by beating them up on the suspicion that they were child-lifters.
“Nobody guilty in this heinous crime and shameful act will be spared and they will be brought to justice in the strongest way possible,” the Chief Minister said. He stated that no one will be spared of this ‘heinous crime’, hence it is the right time for the respective states to urge the Central to draft some interim guidelines followed by an act against such mob violence.
The Rule Of Mobocracy And ‘Law’
Initially, it was the Manav Suraksha Kanoon (MASUKA), which was drafted as an anti-lynching draft by a team headed by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hedge and some officers in charge. But the draft was kept on hold for a long time and nothing fruitful was achieved by the same. In a report by The Print, Advocate Anas Tanvir told the news platform that “The government officials’ emphasis was solely on amending the existing provisions, and they had issues with the anti-lynching law we proposed, they were unnecessarily nitpicking aspects of our proposal that would hold police officers and IAS officers accountable.”
A Breach Of Part III Of The Constitution
Incidents of this nature are violative of the basic human and fundamental rights given to an individual.
In most of the cases, the lynching was done on the basis of ‘discrimination’ and ‘disagreement’ which directly hinders free speech under Article 19 coupled with the right to choice. Moreover, the idea of equality inherited under Article 14 and 15 is also vandalized.
Judicial Interference
Judicial response to mob violence was observed in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India in 2018 when the court came down heavily on the authorities and directed some guidelines for the same. The guidelines can be classified into:
Preventive measures: It involved the duties of the Nodal Officer/ Police Officer to take the cases of mob violence seriously and directed for a formulation of a Special Task Force to procure intelligence report about the people who are likely to commit such incidents. It directed the states to identify and report the lynching cases which were filed in past years. The Central and the State authorities were directed to broadcast on radio and other television sources including social media “that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the law”.
Remedial measures: The court directed that the victim(s) or the family members shall be given free legal aid if they opt for an advocate from the legal aid panel. Moreover, they should be given timely notice of the court proceedings and the court trying the case shall take notice about the protection of the witnesses and victims. To set an example, it was directed to the courts to give maximum punishment in cases of lynching under the Indian Penal Code.
Punitive measures: The court directed that in cases where the officer failed to comply with the given measures in order to prevent or investigate any such incident, the competent authorities shall take action that too not limited up to a departmental inquiry but a ‘logical conclusion’ within six months. “The horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become ‘the new normal’.”
In Para 18 of the judgment in T.Poonawala v Union of India, the bench observed:
“Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself. We may say without any fear of contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day. Such vigilantism, be it for whatever purpose or borne out of whatever cause, has the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the State and altering the constitutional order. These extrajudicial attempts under the guise of protection of the law have to be nipped in the bud; lest it would lead to rise of anarchy and lawlessness which would plague and corrode the nation like an epidemic. The tumultuous dark clouds of vigilantism have the effect of shrouding the glorious ways of democracy and justice leading to the tragic breakdown of the law and transgressing all forms of civility and humanity.”
We Have Overlooked The Directions Of The SC, But We Need A National law
Despite the guiding force by the judiciary, there is no change in the current situation. Only some of the States enacted the anti-lynching law but the majority of them are still considering. Today, it is Maharashtra and it might be anywhere. In 2018, the Supreme Court directed the guidelines; furthermore, it called up for a response by the government in 2019 and directed to consider making a law against mob violence but nothing has been initiated.
In these tough times, we need to revisit the penal laws of our land and draft a separate act for such heinous crimes. Section 302 read with 34 is not enough to tackle a problem which involves hundreds of people.
The United States And The ‘Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2018’
The Justice for Victims of Lynching Act defines the act of lynching as when two or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, colour, religion, or national origin of any person. The punishment which shall be awarded for such offence would not be less than 10 years. The United States of America recently ratified and enacted the bill which was lagging up for around 100 years. Clause (14) of the introduction readouts: 14. An apology offered in the spirit of true repentance moves the United States toward reconciliation and may become central to a new understanding, on which improved racial relations can be forged.
Hence, it is high time that we have a central act against such mob violent acts. Lynching cannot be normalized and it is not possible to club up these offences with the present penal code. The Parliament can amend the Indian Penal Code and specify a separate chapter on mob-violence and hate-mongering. An idea can be drafted from the existing anti-lynching drafts and especially the ‘Justice for Victims of Lynching Act, 2018’ of US can be taken into consideration too.