Case Law On Mob Justice And Court Interventions
Mob justice, often referred to as vigilante justice, is a troubling social phenomenon where individuals take the law into their own hands, bypassing formal legal procedures and often resulting in violence, lynching, or even murder. It poses serious challenges to the rule of law, justice, and human rights, and often leads to chaos and mob violence. Indian courts have intervened in various cases of mob justice, highlighting the legal responsibility of state authorities to protect citizens and uphold law and order. Several judgments have emphasized the role of the judiciary in safeguarding the constitutional rights of individuals and curbing the illegal actions of mobs.
Here are detailed explanations of significant cases in India where the courts have dealt with instances of mob justice and their interventions:
1. State of Maharashtra v. Mangesh Jadhav & Ors. (2008)
This case involved the tragic incident of a lynching in Maharashtra, where a man was publicly beaten to death by a mob after being accused of committing a crime. The mob’s actions were deemed to be an example of mob justice where individuals took the law into their own hands, bypassing the police and judicial systems.
Legal Issue: The case raised the question of accountability for individuals who partake in mob violence, and whether the perpetrators of lynching could be held criminally liable under existing laws.
Judgment: The Bombay High Court addressed the issue of law and order breakdown in cases where mobs take the law into their hands. The court emphasized the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that no individual has the right to deprive another of life or liberty outside of legal procedures. The court convicted the accused under sections 302 (murder), 147 (rioting), and 148 (rioting with a deadly weapon) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court also highlighted that the state must act swiftly to prevent such incidents and prosecute individuals involved in mob justice. The ruling reinforced the legal duty of the police to protect citizens and maintain order in the face of mob violence.
Key Legal Principle: The court ruled that mob justice is illegal, and perpetrators of mob violence are criminally liable. The state must ensure public safety and enforce the rule of law.
2. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
This landmark case was brought before the Supreme Court of India in the context of increasing instances of lynching and cow vigilantism across the country. The petitioner, Tehseen Poonawalla, sought directions from the court to curb the rising trend of mob violence, particularly lynchings that were happening in the name of cow protection, child lifting rumors, and religious extremism.
Legal Issue: The core issue was whether the state governments were failing to prevent lynchings and mob violence, and whether the courts could issue directions to the police and local authorities to curb such activities.
Judgment: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India recognized that lynchings and mob violence were a serious threat to public order and democracy. The Court stated that these acts of vigilante justice were a direct violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution. The Court directed the Central Government and State Governments to take immediate steps to prevent lynchings and take action against mob leaders.
The Court issued the following directions:
Filing of FIRs: Authorities must ensure that FIRs are filed immediately in cases of lynching.
Establishment of fast-track courts: Fast-track courts were to be set up to try cases of lynching.
Police Training: Police officers must be sensitized and trained to handle mobs effectively.
Victim Protection: Adequate protection and compensation must be provided to the families of victims.
The judgment also emphasized that law enforcement agencies must act proactively to prevent such incidents rather than wait for them to occur.
Key Legal Principle: The Supreme Court’s intervention laid down preventive measures, stressing the state's responsibility to protect citizens from mob violence and upholding the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
3. Rama Shankar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017)
This case involved a mob attack on a group of individuals accused of being involved in a theft. The accused were publicly beaten by a mob, leading to severe injuries and the eventual death of one of the victims. The incident was a clear example of mob justice and vigilante actions taken against individuals without any legal proceedings or conviction.
Legal Issue: The issue before the Allahabad High Court was whether the police had failed to prevent the mob from taking matters into their own hands, and if so, what action could be taken against the mob members.
Judgment: The court held that the police’s failure to act promptly contributed to the mob violence, which resulted in the loss of life. The Allahabad High Court condemned the incident as an example of a breakdown in law and order. The court ordered an investigation into the incident and directed the police to immediately arrest the mob members involved in the lynching. The court also directed the state government to take steps to prevent such incidents in the future, including ensuring that strong legal deterrents were in place to discourage vigilante justice. Additionally, the court highlighted the need for a swift judicial response to ensure the rule of law prevails and that individuals are not subjected to violence without due process.
Key Legal Principle: The right to life and due process were central to this judgment. The court stressed the state’s duty to protect citizens from violence and emphasized the importance of policing to maintain public order.
4. State of Karnataka v. Subhash Jadhav (2016)
In this case, a group of individuals had been involved in lynching an accused person on suspicion of committing a crime. The mob's actions were seen as direct defiance of the law and as an attempt to replace the judicial system with its own version of justice. The incident occurred in a rural area where local sentiments had taken over rational legal processes.
Legal Issue: The legal question was about the state's duty to protect the life and liberty of citizens, particularly when a community takes the law into its own hands and executes a death sentence without trial.
Judgment: The Karnataka High Court condemned the act of lynching as barbaric and ruled that it violated not only the right to life of the victim but also the fundamental principles of justice. The Court held that vigilante justice undermines the rule of law, and anyone involved in such acts should be criminally prosecuted. The court ordered the immediate arrest of the individuals involved in the lynching and directed the state authorities to investigate the matter thoroughly. The court also directed the state government to take preventive measures against mob violence, including setting up awareness campaigns about the legal consequences of taking the law into one’s own hands.
Key Legal Principle: The court ruled that mob justice is unlawful and violates the fundamental right to life and personal liberty of the victim. It reinforced the duty of the state to maintain law and order.
5. Killer of the Crowds: The Delhi Riots Case (2020)
This case involved the incidents of mob violence during the Delhi riots in February 2020, where large mobs targeted individuals, properties, and places of worship in the city. The violence was often racially and religiously motivated, and many individuals were beaten or killed in the chaos.
Legal Issue: The primary issue was whether the state could be held accountable for failing to control the mobs and whether the violence could be attributed to the complicity of political or police officials who failed to intervene.
Judgment: The Delhi High Court issued a series of directives to the Delhi Police to ensure the protection of life and property during communal disturbances. The court also emphasized the need for stronger legal action against those who participate in or incite mob violence, and zero tolerance for hate speech. The Court issued orders for immediate arrest and investigation of those who had perpetrated the violence. It also directed the government to compensate victims and provide them with adequate legal support.
The court ordered a speedy trial of those involved in the violence and emphasized the need for accountability at all levels of government to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
Key Legal Principle: The state's duty to prevent mob violence and uphold the rule of law was central in this judgment. The court reaffirmed that no group, no matter how large, had the right to bypass the judicial system.
Conclusion
Indian courts have consistently intervened in cases of mob justice, emphasizing that mob violence is not only unlawful but also a violation of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and personal liberty. They have issued strong directions for swift investigations, arrests, and punishments for individuals involved in such activities. The cases reflect the judiciary's critical role in upholding the rule of law and preventing vigilante justice, which threatens social order and the rights of individuals.
RELATED Blog
comments