LexTEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
291
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016)
JULY 17, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Cow protection groups
indulging in violence – Cow vigilantism and other incidents of
lynching – Writ petition u/Art. 32 seeking direction to State to take
immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups
indulging in violence – Issuance of direction to remove the violent
contents from the social media – Held: Act of lynching is unlawful –
It is constitutional duty to take a call to protect lives and human
rights – No citizen can assault the human dignity of another, for
such an action would comatose the majesty of law – Authorities
conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the
States have the principal obligation to see that no individual or any
core group take law into their own hands – It is to be seen that
vigilantism, cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any
perception, does not take place, else it would usher in anarchy,
chaos, disorder – Thus, vigilantism cannot be allowed – Lynching
is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the
Constitution itself – Steps to be taken at every stage for
implementation of law are extremely important – Hence, the
guidelines in the form of preventive, remedial and punitive measures
are prescribed – Centre and State Government to carry out said
measures within the stipulated period.
Guidelines – Cow vigilantism, incidents of lynching and mob
violence – Issuance of guidelines in the form of preventive, remedial
and punitive measures to curb cow vigilantism and incidents of
lynching.
Legislation – Offence of lynching – Recommendations to the
legislature, Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching
and provide adequate punishment for the same.
[2018] 9 S.C.R. 291
291
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
292
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The States have the onerous duty to see that
no individual or any core group take law into their own hands.
Every citizen has the right to intimate the police about the
infraction of law. An accused booked for an offence is entitled to
fair and speedy trial under the constitutional and statutory scheme
and, thereafter, he may be convicted or acquitted as per the
adjudication by the judiciary on the basis of the evidence brought
on record and the application of legal principles. There cannot
be an investigation, trial and punishment of any nature on the
streets. The process of adjudication takes place within the
hallowed precincts of the courts of justice and not on the streets.
No one has the right to become the guardian of law claiming that
he has to protect the law by any means. [Para 15] [312-G-H;
313-A-B]
Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and Others (2015) 3 SCC
467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987 ; Shakti Vahini v. Union of
India & others 2018 (5) SCALE 51 ; Nandini Sundar
and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2011) 7 SCC
547 : [2011] 8 SCR 1028 ; Mohd. Haroon and Others
v. Union of India and Another (2014) 5 SCC 252 :
[2014] 4 SCR 907 ; Archbishop Raphael Cheenath
S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and Another (2016) 9 SCC
682 – referred to.
1.2 There can be no doubt that the authorities which are
conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the
States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be it
cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does
not take place. When any core group with some kind of idea take
the law into their own hands, it ushers in anarchy, chaos,
disorder and, eventually, there is an emergence of a violent
society. Vigilantism cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be given
room to take shape, for it is absolutely a perverse notion.
Certain applications have been filed on the basis that there is
cattle smuggling and cruel treatment to animals. It is the law
enforcing agencies which have to survey, prevent and prosecute.
No one has the authority to enter into the said field and harbour
the feeling that he is the law and the punisher himself. A country
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
293
where the rule of law prevails does not allow any such thought.
It, in fact, commands for ostracisation of such thoughts with
immediacy. [Para 17] [313-F-G; 314-A-B]
1.3 Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the
exalted values of the Constitution itself. It is said without any
fear of contradiction tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.