Holding

Lynching and mob vigilantism are unlawful, the State must prevent them, and the Court may issue detailed preventive, remedial and punitive guidelines while recommending a separate offence for lynching.

Summary

The Supreme Court entertained a writ petition under Art. 32 filed by a social activist seeking directions to curb cow‑vigilantism, lynching and mob violence. It held that such acts are unlawful, violate fundamental rights and the State has a constitutional duty to protect life and human dignity. The Court issued comprehensive guidelines – preventive, remedial and punitive – including the appointment of senior police officers as Nodal Officers, creation of special task‑forces, fast‑track trials, victim compensation, and disciplinary action against errant officials. It also directed the removal of violent content from social media and recommended that Parliament enact a separate offence of lynching. The directions were to be complied with within stipulated periods, and compliance reports were to be filed. The petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

The legality of cow‑vigilantism and lynching under Articles 14, 21 and 19 of the Constitution
Whether the State has a constitutional duty to prevent mob vigilantism and protect the right to life and dignity
Whether provisions of the Gujarat, Maharashtra and Karnataka cow‑protection statutes are unconstitutional
The scope of the Court’s power under Art. 32 to issue preventive and remedial guidelines
The need for a separate criminal offence for lynching and appropriate punishment
The authority of the State to direct removal of violent content from social‑media platforms

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 129, s. 357A, s. 41, s. 41A
Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954s. 12
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 153A, s. 295A
Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964s. 15
Legal Services Authorities Acts. 1987
Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976s. 13

Subjects

cow vigilantismlynchingmob violenceArticle 32preventive measuresremedial measurespunitive measureshuman rightsrule of lawsocial mediahate speechNodal Officerfast‑track courtsvictim compensationconstitutional duty

Judgment

[2018] 9 S.C.R. 291 291

TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016)
JULY 17, 2018 B
[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
C
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 D
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
E
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 F
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 G
lynching.
Legislation – Offence of lynching – Recommendations to the
legislature, Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching
and provide adequate punishment for the same.
H
291
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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 :
E [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
F 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
G 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
H the feeling that he is the law and the punisher himself. A country
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 293
AND OTHERS

where the rule of law prevails does not allow any such thought. A
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 that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric B
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. The tumultuous dark clouds
of vigilantism have the effect of shrouding the glorious ways of C
democracy and justice leading to tragic breakdown of the law and
transgressing all forms of civility and humanity. Unless these
incidents are controlled, the day is not far when such monstros-
ity in the name of self-professed morality is likely to assume the
shape of a huge cataclysm. It is in direct violation of the D
quintessential spirit of the rule of law and of the exalted faiths of
tolerance and humanity. [Para 18] [314-B-E]
1.4 Mob vigilantism and mob violence have to be prevented
by the governments by taking strict action and by the vigil society
who ought to report such incidents to the state machinery and E
the police instead of taking the law into their own hands. Rising
intolerance and growing polarisation expressed through spate of
incidents of mob violence cannot be permitted to become the
normal way of life or the normal state of law and order in the
country. Good governance and nation building require sustenance
of law and order which is intricately linked to the preservation of F
the marrows of the social structure. In such a situation, the State
has a sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens from unruly elements
and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with
utmost sincerity and true commitment to address and curb such
incidents which must reflect in its actions and schemes. G
[Para 19] [314-E-H]
1.5 Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological
dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results
in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and non-State actors
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the law enforcing
agency. A fabricated identity with bigoted approach sans
acceptance of plurality and diversity results in provocative
sentiments and display of reactionary retributive attitude
transforming itself into dehumanisation of human beings. Such
an atmosphere is one in which rational debate, logical discussion
B
and sound administration of law eludes thereby manifesting clear
danger to various freedoms including freedom of speech and
expression. One man’s freedom of thought, action, speech,
expression, belief, conscience and personal choices is not being
tolerated by the other and this is due to lack of objective
C rationalisation of acts and situations. [Para 20] [315-A-C]
1.6 Freedom of speech and expression in different forms is
the élan vital of sustenance of all other rights and is the very
seed for germinating the growth of democratic views. Plurality of
voices celebrates the constitutionalist idea of a liberal democracy
D and ought not to be suppressed. That is the idea and essence of
our nation which cannot be broken up into fragments by narrow
domestic walls of caste, creed, race, class or religion. Pluralism
and tolerance are essential virtues and constitute the building
blocks of a truly free and democratic society. It must be
emphatically stated that a dynamic contemporary constitutional
E democracy imbibes the essential feature of accommodating
pluralism in thought and approach so as to preserve cohesiveness
and unity. Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic mindset sows the
seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect on freedom of thought
and expression. Hence, tolerance has to be fostered and practised
F and not allowed to be diluted in any manner. [Para 21][315-D-G]
S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and Others (1989) 2
SCC 574 : [1989] 2 SCR 204 – referred to.
Handyside v. United Kingdom 1976 EHRR 737 –
referred to.
G
1.7 In a rights based approach to constitutional legitimacy,
the right to life and liberty is considered paramount and, therefore,
democratic governments must propel and drive towards stronger
foothold for liberties so as to ensure sustenance of higher values

H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 295
AND OTHERS

of democracy thereby paving the path for a spontaneous A
constitutional order. Crime knows no religion and neither the
perpetrator nor the victim can be viewed through the lens of
race, caste, class or religion. The State has a positive obligation
to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals
irrespective of race, caste, class or religion. The State has the
B
primary responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and multi-
culturalistic social order so as to allow free play of ideas and beliefs
and co-existence of mutually contradictory perspectives. Stifling
free voices can never bode well for a true democracy. It is
essential to build societies which embrace diversity in all spheres
and rebuild trust of the citizenry in the State machinery. C
[Para 23] [316-D-F]
1.8 For our nation to survive, without being whittled down,
it is a necessary precondition that all must embrace the sentiment
that they are the essential constituents of diversity that galvanizes
for preservation of unity and respects pluralistic perceptions in D
cohesion with the constitutional ethos. [Para 32] [319-E-F]
St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992) 1
SCC 558 : [1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 ; Sri Adi
Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi &
Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 4 SCC 606 : [1997] E
2 SCR 1086 ; State of Karnataka and another v.
Dr. Praveen Bhai Thogadia (2004) 4 SCC 684 :
[2004] 3 SCR 652 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Lalai
Singh Yadav (1976) 4 SCC 213 : [1977] 1 SCR 616 –
referred to.
F
1.9 The law provides a procedure for arrest and equally for
investigation and the consequential trial. That is what has been
interpreted by this Court while dealing with Article 21 of the
Constitution. Thus, the rights of the citizens cannot be destroyed
in an unlawful manner. As the investigating agency has to show
fidelity to the statutory safeguards, similarly, every citizen is G
required to express loyalty to law and the legal procedure. No
one, is entitled to take the law into his own hands and annihilate
anything that the majesty of law protects. When the vigilantes

H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A involve themselves in lynching or any kind of brutality, they, in
fact, put the requisite accountability of a citizen to law on the
ventilator. That cannot be countenanced. Such core groups cannot
be allowed to act as they please. They cannot be permitted to
indulge in freezing the peace of life on the basis of their contrived
notions. They are no one to punish a person by ascribing any
B
justification. The stand and stance put forth in the interlocutory
applications filed by the impleaded parties intend to convey certain
contraventions of the provisions of statutory law but the
prescription of punishment does not empower any one to
authorize himself to behave as the protector of law and impose
C punishment as per his choice and fancy. That is the role and duty
of the law enforcing agencies known to law. No one else can be
permitted to expropriate that role. It has to be clearly understood
that self-styled vigilantes have no role in that sphere. Their only
right is to inform the crime, if any, to the law enforcing agency. It
is the duty of the law enforcement agencies and the prosecutors
D
to bring the accused persons before the law adjudicating
authorities who, with their innate training and sense of justice,
peruse the materials brought on record, follow the provisions of
law and pass the judgment. In the scheme of things, the external
forces cannot assume the role of protectors and once they pave
E the said path, they associate themselves with criminality and bring
themselves in the category of criminals. It is imperative for them
to remember that they are subservient to the law and cannot be
guided by notions or emotions or sentiments or, for that matter,
faith. [Para 34][320-D-H; 321-A-B]
F D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416 :
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 ; Joginder Kumar v. State of
U.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260 ; Nilabati Behera v.
State of Orissa and Others (1993) 2 SCC 746 ; State of
M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and Others (1995) 4 SCC
262 : [1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 44 ; Arnesh Kumar v. State
G of Bihar and Another (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8
SCR 128 – referred to.
Ex parte Riggins (C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404;
Wilson v. Garcia 471 U.S. 261 (1985) – referred to.

H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 297
AND OTHERS

1.10 The act of lynching is unlawful. It has become a A
sweeping phenomenon with a far-reaching impact. It is
constitutional duty to take a call to protect lives and human rights.
There cannot be a right higher than the right to live with dignity
and further to be treated with humanness that the law provides.
What the law provides may be taken away by lawful means; that
B
is the fundamental concept of law. No one is entitled to shake the
said foundation. No citizen can assault the human dignity of
another, for such an action would comatose the majesty of law. In
a civilized society, it is the fear of law that prevents crimes. When
the preventive measures face failure, the crime takes place and
then there have to be remedial and punitive measures. Steps to C
be taken at every stage for implementation of law are extremely
important. Hence, the guidelines are necessary to be prescribed.
[Para 39][323-D-H]
1.11 Preventive Measures
(i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police D
officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal
Officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by
one of the DSP rank officers in the district for taking measures to
prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They shall
constitute a special task force so as to procure intelligence reports E
about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who
are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements
and fake news.
(ii) The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts,
Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching and F
mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say, in the
last five years. The process of identification should be done within
a period within the stipulated period.
(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned
States shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers of G
the concerned districts for ensuring that the Officer In-charge of
the Police Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if
any instance of mob violence within their jurisdiction comes to
their notice.

H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A (iv) The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular
meetings (at least once a month) with the local intelligence units
in the district along with all Station House Officers of the district
so as to identify the existence of the tendencies of vigilantism,
mob violence or lynching in the district and take steps to prohibit
instances of dissemination of offensive material through different
B
social media platforms or any other means for inciting such
tendencies. The Nodal Officer shall also make efforts to eradicate
hostile environment against any community or caste which is
targeted in such incidents.
(v) The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home
C Department of the concerned States shall take regular review
meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and
State Police Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall bring to
the notice of the DGP any inter-district co-ordination issues for
devising a strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence related
D issues at the State level.
(vi) It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a
mob to disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of
CrPC, which, in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or
wreak the havoc of lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or
E otherwise.
(vii) The Home Department of the Government of India
must take initiative and work in co-ordination with the State
Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies and
by involving all the stake holders to identify the measures for
F prevention of mob violence and lynching against any caste or
community and to implement the constitutional goal of social
justice and the Rule of Law.
(viii) The Director General of Police shall issue a circular
to the Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling
G in the sensitive areas keeping in view the incidents of the past
and the intelligence obtained by the office of the Director General.
It singularly means that there should be seriousness in patrolling
so that the anti-social elements involved in such crimes are
discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law thus fearing
to even think of taking the law into their own hands.
H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 299
AND OTHERS

(ix) The Central and the State Governments should A
broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms
including the official websites of the Home Department and Police
of the States that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall
invite serious consequence under the law.
(x) It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well B
as the State Governments to take steps to curb and stop
dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos
and other material on various social media platforms which have
a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.
(xi) The police shall cause to register FIR under Section C
153A of IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against
persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages
and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence
and lynching of any kind.
(xii) The Central Government shall also issue appropriate D
directions/advisories to the State Governments which would
reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the
measures to be taken. [Para 40] [324-A-H; 325-A-H]
Remedial Measures
(i) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State E
Police, if it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident
of lynching or mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional
police station shall immediately cause to lodge an FIR, without
any undue delay, under the relevant provisions of IPC and/or
other provisions of law. F
(ii) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose
police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate the
Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure that there
is no further harassment of the family members of the victim(s).
(iii) Investigation in such offences shall be personally G
monitored by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure
that the investigation is carried out effectively and the charge-
sheet in such cases is filed within the statutory period from the
date of registration of the FIR or arrest of the accused, as the
case may be.
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A (iv) The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob
violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions
of Section 357A of CrPC. In the said scheme for computation of
compensation, the State Governments shall give due regard to
the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of earnings
including loss of opportunities of employment and education and
B
expenses incurred on account of legal and medical expenses.
The said compensation scheme must also have a provision for
interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of
the deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob
violence/lynching.
C (v) The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be
specifically tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts
earmarked for that purpose in each district. Such courts shall
hold trial of the case on a day to day basis. The trial shall preferably
be concluded within six months from the date of taking
D cognizance. This direction shall apply to even pending cases. The
District Judge shall assign those cases as far as possible to one
jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious disposal thereof.
It shall be the duty of the State Governments and the Nodal
Officers in particular to see that the prosecuting agency strictly
carries out its role in appropriate furtherance of the trial.
E
(vi) In cases of mob violence and lynching, upon conviction
of the accused person(s), the trial court must ordinarily award
maximum sentence as provided for various offences under the
provisions of the IPC.

F (vii) The courts trying the cases of mob violence and
lynching may, on application by a witness or by the public
prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take
such measures, as it deems fit, for protection and for concealing
the identity and address of the witness.

G (viii) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in
cases of mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice
of any court proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be heard
at the trial in respect of applications such as bail, discharge,
release and parole filed by the accused persons. They shall also
have the right to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal
H or sentencing.
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 301
AND OTHERS

(ix) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases A
of mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or
she so chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice from
amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel under the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987. [Para 40] [326-A-H; 327-A-D]
Punitive Measures B
(i) Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of
the district administration has failed to comply with the directions
in order to prevent and/or investigate and/or facilitate expeditious
trial of any crime of mob violence and lynching, the same should
be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and/or C
misconduct for which appropriate action must be taken against
him/her and not limited to departmental action under the service
rules. The departmental action shall be taken to its logical
conclusion by the authority.
(ii) The States are directed to take disciplinary action against D
the concerned officials if it is found that such official(s) did not
prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or
where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not
promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against
the culprits. [Para 40] [327-E-H]
E
Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6
SCC 405 : [2011] 5 SCR 488 – referred to.
1.12 The measures that are directed to be taken have to
be carried out within the stipulated period by the Central and the
State Governments. [Para 41] [328-A] F
1.13 It is axiomatic that it is the duty of the State to ensure
that the machinery of law and order functions efficiently and
effectively in maintaining peace so as to preserve the
quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a
democratic set-up governed by rule of law. In times of chaos and
G
anarchy, the State has to act positively and responsibly to
safeguard and secure the constitutional promises to its citizens.
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
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A of violence which cannot be allowed to become “the new normal”.
The State cannot turn a deaf ear to the growing rumblings of its
People. The exigencies of the situation require to sound a clarion
call for earnest action to strengthen the inclusive and all-
embracing social order to, reaffirm the constitutional faith.
Nothing more and nothing less is expected. [Para 42] [328-B-D]
B
1.14 It appropriate to recommend to the legislature,
Parliament, to create a separate offence for lynching and provide
adequate punishment for the same. It is said so as a special law
in this field would instill a sense of fear for law amongst the people
who involve themselves in such kinds of activities. Fear of law
C and veneration for the command of law constitute the foundation
of a civilized society. [Para 43] [328-E-F]
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and
Others (2014) 11 SCC 477 : [2014] 4 SCR 446 –
referred to.
D
Case Law Reference
[2015] 4 SCR 987 referred to Para 1
2018 (5) SCALE 51 referred to Para 11
[2011] 8 SCR 1028 referred to Para 15
E [2014] 4 SCR 907 referred to Para 16
(2016) 9 SCC 682 referred to Para 16
[1989] 2 SCR 204 referred to Para 22
[1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 121 referred to Para 27
[1997] 2 SCR 1086 referred to Para 29
F
[2004] 3 SCR 652 referred to Para 30
[1977] 1 SCR 616 referred to Para 32
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 referred to Para 33
(1994) 4 SCC 260 referred to Para 33
G (1993) 2 SCC 746 referred to Para 33
[1995] 1 Suppl. SCR 44 referred to Para 33
[2014] 8 SCR 128 referred to Para 33
[2014] 4 SCR 446 referred to Para 33

H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 303
AND OTHERS

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) A
No. 754 of 2016
WITH
Writ Pettiion (Civil) Nos.764 and 768 of 2016
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.732 of 2017
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.122 of 2017. B
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
P. S. Narasimha, A. N. S. Nadkarni, ASGs, Sanjay R. Hegde,
Ms. Indira Jaising, Colin Gonsalves, Ms. V. Mohana, Sidharth Luthra,
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Advs., Anas Tanwir, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Pranjal
Kishore, Abdul Qadir, Shadan Farasat, Ms. Warisha Farasat, C
Ms. Rudrakshi Deo, Suhail Rashid Bhat, Tariq Adeeb, Ms. Mangala,
Satya Mitra, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Raj Bahadur Yadav,
B. V. Balaram Das, V. N. Raghupathy, Parikshit P. Angadi, Anubhav T.
Mishra, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Santosh Kumar, Pankaj Singhal,
Himanshu Gupta, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Rohit K. Singh,
Tapesh Kumar Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, B. Krishna D
Prasad, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Puja Singh, Ms. Mamta Singh,
Ms. Vishakha, Subodh S. Patil, Ms. Supriya Patil, Ajay Singh,
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Vaidruti Mishra,
Kamlendra Mishra, Ranjan Mukherjee, S. Bhowmick, Ms. K. Enatoli
Sema, Edward Belho, Amit Kumar Singh, K. Luikang Michael, Atul E
Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, M. Shoeb Alam, Ms. Fauzia
S., Ujjwal Singh, Mojahid Karim Khan, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli,
Bhupesh Narula, K. V. Jagdishvaran, Ms. G. Indira, Sangram Saron,
Vikram Batra, Shree Pal Singh, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Ayush Anand, P. S.
Sudheer, Santosh Kumar, Bharat Sood, Daryl Menezes, Mrs. D. Bharathi
Reddy, Abhishek, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adarsh Upadhyay, M. Yogesh F
Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Gopal
Singh, Shreyas Jain, V. G. Pragasam, S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, S.
Manurauj, C. K. Sasi, Saurabh Mishra, Arjun Garg, Abhinav Mukerji,
Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna, Ms. Aruna Mathur,
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, M/s. Arputham Aruna & Co., Mrinmay G
Bhattmewara, Rohit Pandey, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Suhaan Mukerji,
Ms. Astha Sharma, Harsh Hiroo Gurjhani, Amit Verma, Vishal Prasad,
Ms. Ruchira Gupta, Santosh Rebello, Bhaskar Chhakara, Shuvodeep
Roy, Sayooj Mohan Das, Naman Kamboj, Rituraj Biswas, Sanjeeb
Panigrahi, Ms. Rashmi Singhania, Anil Grover, Ms. Noopur Singhal, Satish
Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the appearing parties. H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI 1. Law, enacted for the benefit of the
society by conferring rights on the citizens and to regulate social behaviour
in many a sphere, is required to be implemented by the law enforcing
agencies and the citizens are duty bound to follow the law treating it as
B sacred. Law has to be regarded as the foundation of a civilized society.
The primary goal of law is to have an orderly society where the citizenry
dreams for change and progress is realized and the individual aspiration
finds space for expression of his/her potential. In such an atmosphere
while every citizen is entitled to enjoy the rights and interest bestowed
under the constitutional and statutory law, he is also obligated to remain
C obeisant to the command of law. It has been stated in Krishnamoorthy
v. Sivakumar and others1, “the law, the mightiest sovereign in a civilized
society”. The majesty of law cannot be sullied simply because an individual
or a group generate the attitude that they have been empowered by the
principles set out in law to take its enforcement into their own hands and
D gradually become law unto themselves and punish the violator on their
own assumption and in the manner in which they deem fit. They forget
that the administration of law is conferred on the law enforcing agencies
and no one is allowed to take law into his own hands on the fancy of his
“shallow spirit of judgment”. Just as one is entitled to fight for his rights
in law, the other is entitled to be treated as innocent till he is found guilty
E after a fair trial. No act of a citizen is to be adjudged by any kind of
community under the guise of protectors of law. It is the seminal
requirement of law that an accused is booked under law and is dealt
with in accordance with the procedure without any obstruction so that
substantive justice is done. No individual in his own capacity or as a part
F of a group, which within no time assumes the character of a mob, can
take law into his/their hands and deal with a person treating him as
guilty. That is not only contrary to the paradigm of established legal
principles in our legal system but also inconceivable in a civilized society
that respects the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. And, needless to
say, such ideas and conceptions not only create a dent in the majesty of
G
law but are also absolutely obnoxious.
2. It is worthy to note that the reliefs sought in all the writ petitions
have commonality, although the expression of language as well as the
width of the prayer is slightly different. What really emanates as the
H 1
(2015) 3 SCC 467
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 305
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

pivotal issue requiring our contemplated consideration is the duty of this A
Court under the constitutional framework to deal with the primary
grievance that pertains to cow vigilantism and other incidents of
lynching or, if we may say so, targeted violence and commission of
offences affecting the human body and against private and public
property by mobs under the garb of self-assumed and self-appointed
B
protectors of law.
3. We shall state the facts in brief, for there are asseverations
with regard to numerous incidents of lynching and mob violence which
need not be specifically stated since we are going to issue certain
directions covering the arena of preventive, remedial and punitive C
measures. We shall note the suggestions given by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde,
learned senior counsel in one of the writ petitions. We may further state
that we shall refer to the facts in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016.
4. The petitioner, a social activist, has preferred this writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution for commanding the respondent- D
State Nos. 3 to 8 to take immediate and necessary action against the
cow protection groups indulging in violence; and further to issue a writ
or direction to remove the violent contents from the social media
uploaded and hosted by the said groups. There is also a prayer to
declare Section 12 of the Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954, Section
13 of the Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976 and Section 15 of E
the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation
Act, 1964 as unconstitutional. Certain incidents have also been narrated
in the Writ Petition.
5. When the matter was taken up alongwith other matters on
21st July, 2017, the Court, while not dealing with the third prayer, F
that is, for declaring certain provisions of the statutes mentioned
hereinabove as unconstitutional, proceeded to state thus:-
“As far as the first prayer is concerned, on being asked, it is
submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General
G
appearing for the Union of India that the controversy relates to
the States, law and order being a State subject. He further
submits that the Union of India does not support the activities of
the vigilantes.

H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of
Gujarat echoing the aforesaid submission contends that certain
persons who were engaged in this kind of activity, especially the
incident that has been referred to in the writ petition, have been
booked for relevant offences and appropriate police action is taken
against them. Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
B
State of Jharkhand submits that appropriate legal action has been
taken and the criminal cases have been instituted against the
persons who have taken law unto their hands.
At this juncture, it is submitted by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned
senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Union of India
C and the State Governments should file their respective affidavits.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General and the other learned
counsel appearing for the States pray for four weeks’ time to file
counter affidavit. Needless to say, the counter affidavit shall also
refer to the incidents, if any, referred to in the writ petitions.
D As far as the prayer No.2 is concerned, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned
Solicitor General and the learned counsel appearing for the
various States shall assist the Court as to how the activities of the
vigilantes can be absolutely curtailed and suggest ways and
methods to work out the same.”
E 6. Be it noted, when Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2017 was
listed along with the main writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754
of 2016, on 6th September, 2017, the Court, while issuing notice, noted
the statement made by the learned Solicitor General on the previous
occasion and, thereafter, noted the submissions advanced by Ms. Indira
F Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar
Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of
India. We think it appropriate to reproduce the said order as it contains
certain interim directions:-
“After referring to the same, it is urged by her that the law and
G order enforcing agencies of the States have great responsibility
not only to register the First Information Report (FIR) after the
incident takes place but also see to it that groups or a class of
people do not take the law into their hands and indulge in
vigilantism. Additionally, it is her submission that under Article
256 of the Constitution of India, it is the obligation of the Central
H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 307
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

Government to issue directions to the States so that the concept A
of cooperative federalism is sustained and remains stable.
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the Union of India shall take instructions with regard to the
role of the Union of India.
When we are going to pass an ad interim order, Mr. Tushar Mehta, B
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the States of
Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan submitted that these
States will nominate a senior police officer of the Police
Department as the Nodal Officer in each District, who shall
ensure that these vigilantes do not take law unto themselves or C
behave in a manner that they are the law in themselves. If any
kind of deviancy takes place, the said Nodal Officer shall take
action and such vigilantes are booked in accordance with law
with quite promptitude.
An issue has been raised by Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior D
counsel with regard to patrolling on the highways so that such
crimes are stopped. Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for the States
of Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra and Rajasthan 4 shall obtain
instructions in this regard and also apprise what steps have been
taken by the said four States. As far as Highway patrolling is
concerned, the Chief Secretary of each State, in consultation with E
the Director General of Police shall take steps and file affidavits
by the next date of hearing.
As far as the other States are concerned, it is directed that each
of them shall nominate a senior Police Officer qua each District
as Nodal Officer, who shall see to it that these vigilantes do not F
take law unto themselves and the deviants in law are booked
quite promptly.
A copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary of all the
States.”
G
7. On 22nd September, 2017, when the matter was listed, it was
noted that the States of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Gujarat
and Rajasthan had filed the compliance affidavit and an undertaking
was given on behalf of the State of Bihar to file the affidavit of
compliance in the course of the day.
H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 8. In pursuance of our order, the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed
an affidavit annexing a communication sent by the Secretary,
Department of Home (Police) to Senior Superintendents of Police/All
Superintendents of Police of all the districts in Uttar Pradesh. We think
it appropriate to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the said
communication:-
B
“I have been directed to say that while ensuring the compliance
of the aforesaid orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, an
effective control must be maintained over the Criminal Activities
of the Vigilantes. Besides it the Designated Nodal Officer of each
district shall take effective and prompt measures to curve the
C Criminal Activities of such Vigilantes. It must be ensured that
such antisocial elements are not permitted to involve themselves
in any of such criminal activities.
3. In the monthly crime meetings, this issue must be included as
one of the issue to be closely monitored. It must be regularly
D reviewed. Besides it, the Local Intelligence Unit must be
deputed to identify such Vigilante and an strict watch be main-
tained on their activities.
4. It is further directed that while patrolling on the National
Highways and other roads, the Local Police and dial 100 be
E directed to ensure that no Vigilante takes over Law and Order in
its hands and commits a Criminal Act. Prompt enquiries be made
against the unlawful activities of such antisocial elements and
necessary legal action be taken against them through the
designated Nodal Officers posed in their Districts. In case any
F such incidents comes to the notice of the local Police or dial 100
during the patrolling, the same may be brought to the Notice of
the Nodal Officer immediately. Thereafter further legal action
may be ensured promptly by such designated Nodal Officers.
5. It is therefore directed that the aforesaid process is regularly
G adopted, reviewed and monitored from time to time and the
details if any be forwarded to the Director General of Police U.P.
Lucknow, who shall also designate a Nodal Officer out of the
Officers posted at the Police Headquarters. This matter must be
reviewed regularly in each of the monthly meetings and the
necessary details after reviewing the situation be made available
H to the State Government latest by 10th of the each Month.”
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 309
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

9. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat A
annexing orders dated 07.09.2017 and 11.09.2017 passed by the
Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State and by
the Inspector General of Police, State Traffic Branch. The first order
reads thus:-
“The volunteers of the organizations associated with cow B
protection or compassion for animals as well as other citizens
have no right to take law into their own hands to resort to violence
or other illegal acts, either collectively or individually, targeted
against the individuals undertaking transportation of animals or
carrying on the trade in animals/meat, under the guise of cow
protection, the protection of the cow progeny or in the name of C
compassion for animals. With a view to effectively curb such
illegal activities, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed vide the
Order in question to nominate a senior Police Officer qua each
district as the Nodal Officer. The Nodal Officer to be so
nominated shall be required to make effective arrangements in D
his jurisdiction, especially on the highways, to obviate illegal acts
and violence in the name of cow protection or compassion for
animals. If some incidents does take place even after taking all
precautions, the Nodal Officer shall have to ensure that prompt
and effective legal action is initiated against the vigilantes involved
in the incident. To achieve these objectives, the following officers E
are hereby nominated as the Nodal Officers in the Police
Commissionerates and Police Districts in the State of Gujarat.

Area No dal Officer
Police Concerned F
C omm iss ion erate Com mis sioner of
Police
Police Dis trict Concern ed
Sup erintend ent of
Police
G
J urisdictio n of Concerned
Western R ai lway, Sup erintend ent of
Ahmedabad/Vado dra Police, Western
Railway

H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 2. With a view to ensure effective legal proceedings in all offences
that may get registered in connection with the illegal activities
under consideration, the Director General of Police, CID (Crime
and Railways), Gujarat State, Gandhinagar shall undertake
quarterly review of all such cases.”
B 10. A communication has been sent by the Inspector General of
Police, State Traffic Branch from the office of the Director General to
all the Police Commissioners, Range Heads and Police Superintendents
(including Western Railway, Ahmedabad). The relevant part of the said
communication reads thus:-
C “While such incidents take place in certain specific places,
specific roads and particular areas, such spots on National
Highway, State Highway and other roads be identified and mapped.
Further, as is known, there is a specific pattern of violent
incidents taking place and such workers have their camps at
particular time, particular spots and they intercept vehicles at
D certain specific places. Therefore, such time slots and venues be
identified within area of your jurisdiction as also specific modus
operandi being followed by the persons involved in transportation
of cows be studied further and all police officers/personnel should
be briefed about the routes, time, vehicles and methods of
E packing in vehicles used by such persons and instruct them to
keep vigil watch on them.
3. After surveying the area, secret watch be deployed at the
sensitive spots (vulnerability mapping) so identified and
considering the modus operandi of transporters of Gauvansh and
F the practices of Cow Protectors. Further, arrangements for
intensive patrolling be made and thus prevent happening such
violent incidents.
4. Considering sensitivity and gravity of violent assaults on
traders engaged in transportation of animals/meat, it should be
G ensured that no so-called workers or organizations must interfere
in functioning of police in such cases, that no private persons should
take law in their hands and make arrangements for spreading
awareness among all concerned persons to prevent occurrence
of such incidents.

H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 311
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

5. It shall be ensured that all the statutes concerning cows and A
animals be followed by Police Department. Verification of
legality or otherwise of transportation of animals/meat is
authority of police department only. However, due to interference
in this by individuals or organizations other than police lead to
situation of conflicts and law and order issues, occurrence of
B
violent incidents hence all possible efforts may be made to
prevent the same and whenever any such incident takes place,
legal procedures be initiated immediately and effective action be
taken by tracing all the accused involved within further delay.”
It is noticeable that Nodal Officers have been nominated. There
are affidavits filed by the other States indicating how compliance has C
been carried out.
11. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for
the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016, while
substantiating the assertions made in the writ petition, submitted that no
individual or vigilante group can engage himself/themselves in an D
activity of lynching solely on the basis of a perception that a crime has
been committed. That apart, submits Mr. Hegde, the supremacy of law
has to be recognized and if a law prescribes a punishment for a crime, it
has the mechanism provided under the law to do so. The procedural
and the substantial safeguards are required to be followed. It is urged E
by Mr. Hegde, with all the emphasis at his command, that lynching or
any kind of mob violence has to be curbed and crippled by the executive
and no excuse can ever be tolerated. Stress is laid on prevention,
remedial and punitive measures. In this regard, he has placed reliance
on a recent judgment rendered in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India &
others2. F

12. At this juncture, we may enumerate the submissions advanced
by Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2017. She has referred to Martin Luther King
Jr. wherein he had said that law may not be able to make a man love
him, but it can keep the man from lynching him. She submits that there G
has been a constant increase in the number of incidents in recent years
as a consequence of which citizens belonging to minority communities
have become victims of targeted violence which mainly originate on

2
2018 (5) SCALE 51 H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A suspicion and at times misinformation that the victims were involved in
illegal cattle trade and such other activities. Learned senior counsel has
also referred to certain specific incidents of lynching. It is additionally
argued by her that the Central Government be directed to intervene in
exercise of the power conferred under Articles 256 and 257 of the
Constitution to issue directions to the State Governments.
B
13. It is urged by her that in the recent past, self proclaimed and
self-styled vigilantes have brazenly taken law into themselves and have
targeted citizens belonging to certain communities and lower strata of
the society which cannot be tolerated and it is the obligation of the Union
and the States to take immediate action warranted in law to stop such
C activities. She has further submitted that there have been many an incident
of lynching mostly by vigilante groups across the States of Maharashtra,
Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,
Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi. It is her stringent stand that action is
required to be taken against the perpetrators when approached by the
D family members of the victim.
14. She has canvassed that it is the foremost duty of the Central
and the State Governments to ensure that the members of the minorities
are not targeted by mob violence and vigilante groups and if the illegal
actions of these lynchers are not totally curbed, there would be absolute
E chaos where any private individual can take law into his own hands for
the enforcement of criminal law in accordance with his own judgment.
15. At the very inception, while delving into the rivalised
submissions advanced at the Bar, it is necessary to understand that a
controversy of the present nature deserves to be addressed with
F enormous sensitivity. We had issued certain directions as an interim
measure and there has been some compliance but we are of the
considered opinion that the situations that have emerged and the
problems that have arisen need to be totally curbed. 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
G the infraction of law. As stated earlier, 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

H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 313
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

on record and the application of legal principles. There cannot be an A
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.
It is the duty of the States, as has been stated in Nandini Sundar and
B
others v. State of Chhattisgarh3, to strive, incessantly and consistently,
to promote fraternity amongst all citizens so that the dignity of every
citizen is protected, nourished and promoted. That apart, it is the
responsibility of the States to prevent untoward incidents and to prevent
crime.
16. In Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and C
another4, it has been clearly held that it is the responsibility of the State
Administration in association with the intelligence agencies of both the
State and the Centre to prevent recurrence of communal violence in any
part of the State. If any officer responsible for maintaining law and
order is found negligent, he/she should be brought within the ambit of D
law. In this context, reference to the authority in Archbishop Raphael
Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and another5 would be useful. In
the said case, while dealing with the issue of communal violence, the
Court observed that the State Government shall do well to enquire into
and find the causes for such communal unrest and strengthen the fabric
of the society. It further stated that strengthening of police E
infrastructure in the district would undoubtedly help in curbing any
recurrence of such communal violence. Emphasis was also laid on
simultaneous peace-building measures.
17. There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities which
are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the F
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 G
imagination, be given room to take shape, for it is absolutely a perverse
notion. We may note here that certain applications for intervention and
written notes have been filed in this regard supporting the same on the
3
(2011) 7 SCC 547
4
(2014) 5 SCC 252
5
(2016) 9 SCC 682 H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A basis that there is cattle smuggling and cruel treatment to animals. In
this context, suffice it to say that 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 where the rule of law prevails does not
allow any such thought. It, in fact, commands for ostracisation of such
B
thoughts with immediacy.
18. 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
C 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
D 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 tragic breakdown of
the law and transgressing all forms of civility and humanity. Unless these
incidents are controlled, the day is not far when such monstrosity in the
name of self-professed morality is likely to assume the shape of a huge
E cataclysm. It is in direct violation of the quintessential spirit of the rule of
law and of the exalted faiths of tolerance and humanity.
19. Mob vigilantism and mob violence have to be prevented by
the governments by taking strict action and by the vigil society who
ought to report such incidents to the state machinery and the police
F instead of taking the law into their own hands. Rising intolerance and
growing polarisation expressed through spate of incidents of mob violence
cannot be permitted to become the normal way of life or the normal
state of law and order in the country. Good governance and nation building
require sustenance of law and order which is intricately linked to the
G preservation of the marrows of our social structure. In such a situation,
the State has a sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens from unruly elements
and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with utmost
sincerity and true commitment to address and curb such incidents which
must reflect in its actions and schemes.

H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 315
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

20. Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological dominance A
and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results in a reign of terror.
Extra judicial elements and non-State actors cannot be allowed to take
the place of law or the law enforcing agency. A fabricated identity with
bigoted approach sans acceptance of plurality and diversity results in
provocative sentiments and display of reactionary retributive attitude
B
transforming itself into dehumanisation of human beings. Such an
atmosphere is one in which rational debate, logical discussion and sound
administration of law eludes thereby manifesting clear danger to various
freedoms including freedom of speech and expression. One man’s
freedom of thought, action, speech, expression, belief, conscience and
personal choices is not being tolerated by the other and this is due to lack C
of objective rationalisation of acts and situations. In this regard, it has
been aptly said:-
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government;
When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society
is dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”6 D
21. Freedom of speech and expression in different forms is the
élan vital of sustenance of all other rights and is the very seed for
germinating the growth of democratic views. Plurality of voices celebrates
the constitutionalist idea of a liberal democracy and ought not to be
suppressed. That is the idea and essence of our nation which cannot be, E
to borrow a line from Rabindranath Tagore, “broken up into fragments
by narrow domestic walls” of caste, creed, race, class or religion.
Pluralism and tolerance are essential virtues and constitute the building
blocks of a truly free and democratic society. It must be emphatically
stated that a dynamic contemporary constitutional democracy imbibes
the essential feature of accommodating pluralism in thought and approach F
so as to preserve cohesiveness and unity. Intolerance arising out of a
dogmatic mindset sows the seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect
on freedom of thought and expression. Hence, tolerance has to be fostered
and practised and not allowed to be diluted in any manner.
22. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others 7 , G
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J., although in a different context, referred to the
decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Handyside v. United
6
Benjamin Franklin, On Freedom of Speech and the Press, from the Pennsylvania
Gazette, November, 1737
7
(1989) 2 SCC 574 H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A Kingdom8 wherein it has been held thus in the context of Article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):-
“The court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost
attention to the principles characterizing a ‘democratic society’.
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations
B of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and
for the development of every man. Subject to Article 10(2), it is
applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably
received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference,
but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any
sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism,
C tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no
‘democratic society’.”
23. In a rights based approach to constitutional legitimacy, the
right to life and liberty is considered paramount and, therefore, democratic
governments must propel and drive towards stronger foothold for liberties
D so as to ensure sustenance of higher values of democracy thereby paving
the path for a spontaneous constitutional order. Crime knows no religion
and neither the perpetrator nor the victim can be viewed through the
lens of race, caste, class or religion. The State has a positive obligation
to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals
E irrespective of race, caste, class or religion. The State has the primary
responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and multi-culturalistic social
order so as to allow free play of ideas and beliefs and co-existence of
mutually contradictory perspectives. Stifling free voices can never bode
well for a true democracy. It is essential to build societies which embrace
diversity in all spheres and rebuild trust of the citizenry in the State
F machinery.
24. Lynching and mob violence are creeping threats that may
gradually take the shape of a Typhon-like monster as evidenced in the
wake of the rising wave of incidents of recurring patterns by frenzied
mobs across the country instigated by intolerance and misinformed by
G circulation of fake news and false stories. There has been an unfortunate
litany of spiralling mob violence and agonized horror presenting a grim
and gruesome picture that compels us to reflect whether the populace
of a great Republic like ours has lost the values of tolerance to sustain a
diverse culture. Besides, bystander apathy, numbness of the mute
H 8
1976 EHRR 737, at p. 754
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 317
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

spectators of the scene of the crime, inertia of the law enforcing A
machinery to prevent such crimes and nip them in the bud and
grandstanding of the incident by the perpetrators of the crimes including
in the social media aggravates the entire problem. One must constantly
remind oneself that an attitude of morbid intolerance is absolutely
intolerable and agonizingly painful.
B
25. Lynching, at one point of time, was so rampant in the United
States that Mark Twain had observed in his inimitable style that it had
become “the United States of Lyncherdom”. The sarcasm is apparent.
26. In the obtaining situation, the need to preserve and maintain
unity amongst the fellow citizens of our country, who represent different C
castes, creed and races, follow different religions and use multiple
languages, ought to be discussed and accentuated. It is requisite to state
that our country must sustain, exalt and celebrate the feeling of solidarity
and harmony so that the spirit of oneness is entrenched in the collective
character. Sans such harmony and understanding, we may unwittingly
pave the path of disaster. D

27. In St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi9, while
emphasizing on the significance of ‘Unity in Diversity’, the Court has
observed that the aim of our Constitution is unity in diversity and to
impede any fissiparous tendencies for enriching the unity amongst Indians
by assimilating the diversities. The meaning of diversity in its connotative E
expanse of the term would include geographical, religious, linguistic, racial
and cultural differences. It is absolutely necessary to underscore that
India represents a social, religious and cultural diversity.
28. ‘Unity’ in the context of a nation means unity amongst the
fellow citizens. It implies integration of the citizens whereby the citizens F
embrace a feeling of ‘We’ with a sense of bonding with fellow citizens
which would definitely go a long way in holding the Indian society
together. Emile Durkheim, French sociologist, has said that when unity
is based on heterogeneity and diversity, it can very well be described as
organic solidarity. Durkheim’s view would be acceptable in the context G
of the Indian society as it exhibits a completely organic social solidarity.
29. The Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath
Temple, Varanasi and others v. State of U.P. and others 10. has
9
(1992) 1 SCC 558
10
(1997) 4 SCC 606 H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A highlighted that religious tolerance is an important facet of ‘Unity in
Diversity’ and observed thus:-
“Unity in diversity is the Indian culture and ethos. The tolerance
of all religious faiths, respect for each other’s religion are our
ethos. These pave the way and foundation for integration and
B national unity and foster respect for each others religion; religious
faith and belief. Integration of Bharat is, thus, its arch.”
[Emphasis supplied]
30. In State of Karnataka and another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai
Thogadia11, stress has been laid on ‘Unity in Diversity’ treating it as the
C ideal way of life considering that our nation is a unification of people
coming from diverse cultures, religions and races. The Court further
went on to say that our nation has the world’s most heterogeneous society
having a rich heritage where the Constitution is committed to the high
ideas of socialism, secularism and the integrity of the nation and problems,
D if any, that arise on the path of the nation’s progress are mostly solved
on the basis of human approaches and harmonious reconciliation of
differences. The following observations made by the Court in the
aforesaid case with regard to the need to preserve the unified social
fabric are also important:-

E “It is, therefore, imperative that if any individual or group of persons,
by their action or caustic and inflammatory speech are bent upon
sowing seed of mutual hatred, and their proposed activities are
likely to create disharmony and disturb equilibrium, sacrificing
public peace and tranquility, strong action, and more so preventive
actions are essentially and vitally needed to be taken. Any speech
F or action which would result in ostracization of communal harmony
would destroy all those high values which the Constitution aims
at. Welfare of the people is the ultimate goal of all laws, and State
action and above all the Constitution. They have one common
object, that is to promote well being and larger interest of the
G society as a whole and not of any individual or particular groups
carrying any brand names. It is inconceivable that there can be
social well being without communal harmony, love for each other
and hatred for none.”
[Emphasis added]
11
H (2004) 4 SCC 684
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 319
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

31. Unity in Diversity must be recognized as the most potent A
weapon in India’s armoury which binds different and varied kinds of
people in the solemn thread of humanity. This diversity is the strength of
our nation and for realizing this strength, it is sine qua non that we
sustain it and shun schismatic tendencies. It has to be remembered that
the unique feature of ‘Unity in Diversity’ inculcates in the citizens the
B
virtue of respecting the opinions and choices of others. Such respect
imbibes the feeling of acceptance of plurality and elevates the idea of
tolerance by promoting social cohesion and infusing a sense of fraternity
and comity.
32. In this context, the observations in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Lalai Singh Yadav12 are apt:- C

“The State, in India, is secular and does not take sides with one
religion or other prevalent in our pluralistic society. It has no direct
concern with the faiths of the people but is deeply obligated not
merely to preserve and protect society against breaches of the
peace and violations of public order but also to create conditions D
where the sentiments and feelings of people of diverse or opposing
beliefs and bigotries are not so molested by ribald writings or
offence publications as to provoke or outrage groups into possible
violent action. Essentially, good government necessitates peace
and security..” E
Thus, for our nation to survive, without being whittled down, it is a
necessary precondition that all must embrace the sentiment that they
are the essential constituents of diversity that galvanizes for preservation
of unity and respects pluralistic perceptions in cohesion with the
constitutional ethos. F
33. Having stated about the need of tolerance in a pluralistic society,
we may refer with profit that the Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West
Bengal13, after referring to the authorities in Joginder Kumar v. State
of U.P. and others14, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and others15
and State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi and others16, laid down G
certain guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention. In
12
(1976) 4 SCC 213
13
(1997) 1 SCC 416
14
(1994) 4 SCC 260
15
(1993) 2 SCC 746
16
(1995) 4 SCC 262
H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another17, this Court referred to
Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ruled thus:-
“7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before arrest must put a
question to himself, why arrest? Is it really required? What purpose
it will serve? What object it will achieve? It is only after these
B questions are addressed and one or the other conditions as
enumerated above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be
exercised. In fine, before arrest first the police officers should
have reason to believe on the basis of information and material
that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the
police officer has to be satisfied further that the arrest is necessary
C for one or the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses (a) to (e)
of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC.”
34. The purpose of referring to the said authorities is that the law
provides a procedure for arrest and equally for investigation and the
consequential trial. That is what has been interpreted by this Court
D while dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the rights of the
citizens cannot be destroyed in an unlawful manner. As the investigating
agency has to show fidelity to the statutory safeguards, similarly, every
citizen is required to express loyalty to law and the legal procedure. No
one, and we repeat no one, is entitled to take the law into his own hands
E and annihilate anything that the majesty of law protects. When the
vigilantes involve themselves in lynching or any kind of brutality, they, in
fact, put the requisite accountability of a citizen to law on the ventilator.
That cannot be countenanced. Such core groups cannot be allowed to
act as they please. They cannot be permitted to indulge in freezing the
peace of life on the basis of their contrived notions. They are no one to
F punish a person by ascribing any justification. The stand and stance put
forth in the interlocutory applications filed by the impleaded parties intend
to convey certain contraventions of the provisions of statutory law but
the prescription of punishment does not empower any one to authorize
himself to behave as the protector of law and impose punishment as per
G his choice and fancy. That is the role and duty of the law enforcing
agencies known to law. No one else can be permitted to expropriate
that role. It has to be clearly understood that self-styled vigilantes have
no role in that sphere. Their only right is to inform the crime, if any, to
the law enforcing agency. It is the duty of the law enforcement agencies
17
H (2014) 8 SCC 273
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 321
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

and the prosecutors to bring the accused persons before the law A
adjudicating authorities who, with their innate training and sense of justice,
peruse the materials brought on record, follow the provisions of law and
pass the judgment. In the scheme of things, the external forces cannot
assume the role of protectors and once they pave the said path, they
associate themselves with criminality and bring themselves in the category
B
of criminals. It is imperative for them to remember that they are
subservient to the law and cannot be guided by notions or emotions or
sentiments or, for that matter, faith.
35. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from Shakti
Vahini (supra) which, though pronounced in a different context, has
certain significance:- C

“The ‘Khap Panchayats’ or such assembly should not take the
law into their hands and further cannot assume the character of
the law implementing agency, for that authority has not been
conferred upon them under any law. Law has to be allowed to
sustain by the law enforcement agencies. For example, when a D
crime under Indian Penal Code is committed, an assembly of people
cannot impose the punishment. They have no authority. They are
entitled to lodge an FIR or inform the police. They may also
facilitate so that the Accused is dealt with in accordance with
law. But, by putting forth a stand that they are spreading awareness, E
they really can neither affect others’ fundamental rights nor cover
up their own illegal acts. It is simply not permissible. In fact, it has
to be condemned as an act abhorrent to law and, therefore, it has
to stop. Their activities are to be stopped in entirety. There is no
other alternative. What is illegal cannot commend recognition or
acceptance.” F

36. We may now refer to some of the authorities of the American
Courts which have dealt with the menace of lynching which, at one
point of time, was very rampant in the American society. The American
Courts deplored this menace and dealt it with iron hands so as to eradicate
the same. Ex parte Riggins18 was a case involving the lynching of a G
Negro citizen who had been imprisoned on the charge of murder. While
he was imprisoned in jail, the mob removed him and lynched him by
hanging. Thereafter, certain mobsters involved in the said hanging were

18
(C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404
H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A indicted. A petition of habeas corpus was filed seeking the release of the
said mobsters on the ground that there was no law in the United States
which legalized the indictment of the said mobsters. While disposing of
the said habeas corpus petition and upholding the indictment, Thomas
Goode Jones, J. made the following relevant observations:-
B “When a private individual takes a person charged with crime
from the custody of the state authorities to prevent the state from
affording him due process of law, and puts him to death to punish
the crime and to prevent the enjoyment of such right, it is violent
usurpation and exercise, in the particular case, of the very function
which the Constitution of the United States itself, under this clause
C [the 14th Amendment] directs the state to perform in the interest
of the citizen. Such lawlessness differs from ordinary kidnapping
and murder, in that dominant intent and actual result is usurpation
and exercise by private individuals of the sovereign functions of
administering justice and punishing crime, in order to defeat the
D performance of duties required of the state by the supreme law
of the land. The inevitable effect of such lawlessness is not merely
to prevent the state from performing its duty, but to deprive the
accused of all enjoyment, or opportunity of enjoyment of rights
which this clause of the Constitution intended to work out for him
by the actual performance by the state of all things included in
E affording due process of law, which enjoyment can be worked
out in no other way in his individual case. Such lawlessness defeats
the performance of the state’s duty, and the opportunity of the
citizen to have the benefit of it, quite as effectually and far more
frequently than vicious laws, or the partiality or the inefficiency of
F state officers in the discharge of their constitutional duty. It is a
great, notorious, and growing evil, which directly attacks the
purpose which the Constitution of the United States had in view
when it enjoined the duty upon the state.”
37. In Wilson v. Garcia19, the Supreme Court of the United States
G referred to the debates of the Parliament while enacting the Civil Rights
Act of 1871 which are relevant in the present context and read as follows:-
“While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and
lynchings and banishing have been visited upon unoffending
American citizens, the local administrations have been found
H 19
471 U.S. 261 (1985)
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 323
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective. A
Combinations, darker than the night that hides them, conspiracies,
wicked as the worst of felons could devise, have gone unwhipped
of justice. Immunity is given to crime, and the records of public
tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective
redress. 3”
B
38. Thus, the decisions of this Court as well as the authorities
from other jurisdictions clearly show that every citizen has to abide by
the law and the law never confers the power on a citizen to become the
law unto himself or take law into his hands. The idea is absolutely
despicable, the thought is utterly detestable and the action is obnoxious
and completely hellish. It is nauseatingly perverse. In the aforesaid C
hearing, Mr. Hegde, as stated earlier, gave the preventive, remedial and
punitive measures to be laid down as guidelines by this Court.
Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel, has placed reliance on Pravasi
Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and others20 to submit that these
guidelines do come under Sections 153 and 295A IPC and this Court has D
elaborately dealt with the same.
39. There is no dispute that the act of lynching is unlawful but we
are not concerned with any specific case since it has become a sweeping
phenomenon with a far-reaching impact. It is our constitutional duty to
take a call to protect lives and human rights. There cannot be a right E
higher than the right to live with dignity and further to be treated with
humanness that the law provides. What the law provides may be taken
away by lawful means; that is the fundamental concept of law. No one
is entitled to shake the said foundation. No citizen can assault the human
dignity of another, for such an action would comatose the majesty of
law. In a civilized society, it is the fear of law that prevents crimes. F
Commencing from the legal space of democratic Athens till the legal
system of modern societies today, the law makers try to prevent crimes
and make the people aware of the same but some persons who develop
masterly skill to transgress the law jostle in the streets that eventually
leads to an atmosphere which witnesses bloodshed and tears. When the G
preventive measures face failure, the crime takes place and then there
have to be remedial and punitive measures. Steps to be taken at every
stage for implementation of law are extremely important. Hence, the
guidelines are necessary to be prescribed.
20
(2014) 11 SCC 477 H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 40. In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to issue the following
guidelines:-
A. Preventive Measures
(i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police officer,
not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal Officer in each
B district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by one of the DSP rank
officers in the district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob
violence and lynching. They shall constitute a special task force so as to
procure intelligence reports about the people who are likely to commit
such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative
C statements and fake news.
(ii) The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts, Sub-
Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching and mob violence
have been reported in the recent past, say, in the last five years. The
process of identification should be done within a period of three weeks
D from the date of this judgment, as such time period is sufficient to get the
task done in today’s fast world of data collection.
(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States
shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers of the concerned
districts for ensuring that the Officer In-charge of the Police Stations of
E the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of mob violence
within their jurisdiction comes to their notice.
(iv) The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular meetings
(at least once a month) with the local intelligence units in the district
along with all Station House Officers of the district so as to identify the
F existence of the tendencies of vigilantism, mob violence or lynching in
the district and take steps to prohibit instances of dissemination of
offensive material through different social media platforms or any other
means for inciting such tendencies. The Nodal Officer shall also make
efforts to eradicate hostile environment against any community or caste
which is targeted in such incidents.
G
(v) The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home
Department of the concerned States shall take regular review meetings
(at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police
Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall bring to the notice of the
DGP any inter-district co-ordination issues for devising a strategy to
H tackle lynching and mob violence related issues at the State level.
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 325
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

(vi) It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to A
disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of CrPC, which, in
his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or wreak the havoc of
lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise.

(vii) The Home Department of the Government of India must
take initiative and work in co-ordination with the State Governments for B
sensitising the law enforcement agencies and by involving all the stake
holders to identify the measures for prevention of mob violence and
lynching against any caste or community and to implement the
constitutional goal of social justice and the Rule of Law.
C
(viii) The Director General of Police shall issue a circular to the
Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling in the sensitive
areas keeping in view the incidents of the past and the intelligence obtained
by the office of the Director General. It singularly means that there
should be seriousness in patrolling so that the anti-social elements involved
in such crimes are discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law D
thus fearing to even think of taking the law into their own hands.

(ix) The Central and the State Governments should broadcast on
radio and television and other media platforms including the official
websites of the Home Department and Police of the States that lynching
and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the E
law.

(x) It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well as the
State Governments to take steps to curb and stop dissemination of
irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other material on various
social media platforms which have a tendency to incite mob violence F
and lynching of any kind.

(xi) The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A of
IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against persons who
disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having
G
content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.

(xii) The Central Government shall also issue appropriate
directions/advisories to the State Governments which would reflect the
gravity and seriousness of the situation and the measures to be taken.
H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A B. Remedial Measures
(i) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if it
comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of lynching or
mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional police station shall
immediately cause to lodge an FIR, without any undue delay, under the
B relevant provisions of IPC and/or other provisions of law.
(ii) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose
police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate the Nodal
Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure that there is no further
harassment of the family members of the victim(s).
C (iii) Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored
by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure that the
investigation is carried out effectively and the charge-sheet in such cases
is filed within the statutory period from the date of registration of the
FIR or arrest of the accused, as the case may be.
D (iv) The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob violence
victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section
357A of CrPC within one month from the date of this judgment. In the
said scheme for computation of compensation, the State Governments
shall give due regard to the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury
E and loss of earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and
education and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical
expenses. The said compensation scheme must also have a provision
for interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of the
deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob violence/
lynching.
F
(v) The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically
tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts earmarked for that purpose
in each district. Such courts shall hold trial of the case on a day to day
basis. The trial shall preferably be concluded within six months from the
date of taking cognizance. We may hasten to add that this direction shall
G apply to even pending cases. The District Judge shall assign those cases
as far as possible to one jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious
disposal thereof. It shall be the duty of the State Governments and the
Nodal Officers in particular to see that the prosecuting agency strictly
carries out its role in appropriate furtherance of the trial.
H
TEHSEEN S. POONAWALLA v. UNION OF INDIA 327
AND OTHERS [DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

(vi) To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and lynching, A
upon conviction of the accused person(s), the trial court must ordinarily
award maximum sentence as provided for various offences under the
provisions of the IPC.
(vii) The courts trying the cases of mob violence and lynching
may, on application by a witness or by the public prosecutor in relation to B
such witness or on its own motion, take such measures, as it deems fit,
for protection and for concealing the identity and address of the witness.
(viii) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of
mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice of any court
proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be heard at the trial in respect C
of applications such as bail, discharge, release and parole filed by the
accused persons. They shall also have the right to file written submissions
on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.
(ix) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of
mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or she so D
chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice from amongst those
enrolled in the legal aid panel under the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987.
C. Punitive Measures
(i) Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of the E
district administration has failed to comply with the aforesaid directions
in order to prevent and/or investigate and/or facilitate expeditious trial of
any crime of mob violence and lynching, the same shall be considered as
an act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which appropriate
action must be taken against him/her and not limited to departmental F
action under the service rules. The departmental action shall be taken to
its logical conclusion preferably within six months by the authority of the
first instance.
(ii) In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam Servai v.
State of Tamil Nadu21, the States are directed to take disciplinary action
G
against the concerned officials if it is found that (i) such official(s) did
not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii)
where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly
apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.
21
(2011) 6 SCC 405
H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 9 S.C.R.

A 41. The measures that are directed to be taken have to be carried
out within four weeks by the Central and the State Governments. Reports
of compliance be filed within the said period before the Registry of this
Court.
42. We may emphatically note that it is axiomatic that it is the
B duty of the State to ensure that the machinery of law and order functions
efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to preserve our
quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic
set-up governed by rule of law. In times of chaos and anarchy, the State
has to act positively and responsibly to safeguard and secure the
constitutional promises to its citizens. The horrendous acts of mobocracy
C 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”.
The State cannot turn a deaf ear to the growing rumblings of its People,
since its concern, to quote Woodrow Wilson, “must ring with the voices
D of the people.” The exigencies of the situation require us to sound a
clarion call for earnest action to strengthen our inclusive and all-embracing
social order which would, in turn, reaffirm the constitutional faith. We
expect nothing more and nothing less.
43. Apart from the directions we have given hereinbefore and
E what we have expressed, we think it appropriate to recommend to the
legislature, that is, the Parliament, to create a separate offence for
lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. We have said
so as a special law in this field would instill a sense of fear for law
amongst the people who involve themselves in such kinds of activities.
There can be no trace of doubt that fear of law and veneration for the
F command of law constitute the foundation of a civilized society.
44. Let the matters be listed on 20th August, 2018 for further
directions.

G Nidhi Jain Directions issued.

H