Enact Strictest Punishment For Those Who Indulge In Communal Violence
Strict Punishment for Communal Violence: Overview
Communal violence refers to acts of violence, riots, or unrest between different religious, ethnic, or social communities. It is a serious public order offense that threatens social harmony, constitutional values, and the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21).
The judiciary has consistently held that those who instigate or participate in communal violence must be dealt with the strictest punishment to deter recurrence and uphold rule of law.
Constitutional and Legal Basis
Article 21 – Protects life and personal liberty; communal riots violate this fundamental right.
Article 14 – Guarantees equality before the law; perpetrators cannot be allowed to escape due to social or political influence.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions relevant to communal violence:
Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups
Section 295A: Deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings
Section 302: Punishment for murder during riots
Section 307: Attempt to murder
Judicial Reasoning for Strict Punishment
Deterrence – Strong punishment discourages communal tensions and ensures offenders think twice before instigating violence.
Rule of Law – Everyone, regardless of political or social standing, must be held accountable.
Protection of Victims – Victims of communal violence have a constitutional right to justice and rehabilitation.
Preserving Secularism – India is a secular state; communal violence threatens its foundation.
Key Supreme Court and High Court Judgments
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976)
Held that acts of violence against a community must be punished strictly to maintain public order and social harmony.
Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra (2007)
The Court emphasized that communal riots cannot be treated lightly; timely and stringent action against rioters is essential to prevent recurrence.
State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai Patel (2009)
During post-Godhra riots, the Court stressed that those involved in instigating or participating in communal violence must be held liable without delay, and punishment must serve as deterrence.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)
The Court observed that political or influential figures involved in communal violence cannot be shielded, and justice must be swift and strict.
Recent High Court Observations (Kerala, 2022)
HC directed police and state authorities to ensure fast-track investigation and strict legal action against perpetrators of communal violence, stressing that leniency emboldens future offenders.
Practical Implications
Fast-track Courts – Trials in communal violence cases should be expedited to deliver justice quickly.
Stringent Investigation – Police must gather evidence meticulously; delay or negligence cannot be tolerated.
Maximum Punishment – Courts should not shy away from awarding severe sentences under IPC sections 302, 307, and 153A if evidence supports conviction.
Preventive Measures – Authorities should monitor hate speech, inflammatory social media posts, and provocative actions to prevent escalation.
Principle Established
Communal violence threatens fundamental rights and social harmony.
Strict and deterrent punishment is mandatory to uphold law, prevent recurrence, and protect victims.
No one is above the law, including influential or political actors involved in inciting riots.
✅ In short: The judiciary has repeatedly stressed that strictest punishment must be imposed on those indulging in communal violence, both to protect victims and preserve social order. Leniency or delay only encourages further unrest.
RELATED Blog
0 comments