Genocide And Indian Legal Framework
🔴 GENOCIDE: DEFINITION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
The UN Genocide Convention (1948) defines genocide as:
"Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."
These acts include:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
Inflicting conditions to destroy the group;
Preventing births;
Forcibly transferring children.
🔹 India signed the Genocide Convention in 1949 but has not enacted specific domestic legislation to implement it.
⚖ INDIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON GENOCIDE-LIKE CRIMES
Even though India hasn’t criminalized genocide explicitly, the following provisions are applied in cases of mass killings, communal violence, or ethnic/religious atrocities:
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
Section 302 – Murder
Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy
Section 153A – Promoting enmity between groups
Section 295A – Insulting religious beliefs
Section 505 – Statements leading to public mischief
Section 34/149 – Common intention / Unlawful assembly
2. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973
Provides for investigation, arrest, and trial of crimes
3. Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
NHRC can intervene in cases involving large-scale human rights violations
4. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Protects against caste-based mass violence
📚 CASE LAWS RELATING TO GENOCIDE OR GENOCIDE-LIKE CRIMES IN INDIA
Here are five major cases where the courts addressed mass violence that had genocidal characteristics, even though the term "genocide" was not used in the legal findings.
✅ 1. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) – [Assassination of Indira Gandhi & Anti-Sikh Riots]
Background:
After the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards in 1984, thousands of Sikhs were killed in organized riots, especially in Delhi.
Legal Issues:
Kehar Singh was convicted for conspiracy to assassinate the PM.
The mass killings of Sikhs led to demands for genocide charges, but were handled under IPC sections like 302, 147, 148, etc.
Outcome:
Kehar Singh was hanged.
The riots were not prosecuted as genocide but as individual crimes.
Multiple commissions (e.g., Nanavati Commission) found political complicity.
Importance:
First instance of a genocide-like event post-independence.
No perpetrators charged with genocide due to lack of domestic legal framework.
✅ 2. State v. Sajjan Kumar (2018) – [1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Case]
Background:
Congress leader Sajjan Kumar was accused of inciting mobs that killed Sikhs in 1984.
Legal Findings:
Delhi High Court convicted Sajjan Kumar, stating:
"Crimes against humanity were committed in Delhi in 1984 and the accused enjoyed political patronage."
The judgment recognized that mass killings were targeted at one community, showing genocidal intent, even though genocide is not a statutory crime in India.
Outcome:
Sajjan Kumar was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Importance:
First time a court explicitly invoked the concept of "crimes against humanity".
Highlighted the legal vacuum for prosecuting genocide.
✅ 3. Best Bakery Case – Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004)
Background:
During the 2002 Gujarat riots, a mob attacked the Best Bakery in Vadodara, killing 14 Muslims.
Legal Issues:
Original trial in Gujarat resulted in acquittals due to witness hostility and intimidation.
Supreme Court transferred the trial to Maharashtra.
Outcome:
Convictions of several accused.
Supreme Court said:
“A case like this shows a complete collapse of the rule of law. The state machinery acted in a biased manner.”
Importance:
Showed state complicity or failure, a key feature in genocide.
Emphasized the need for victim and witness protection.
✅ 4. National Human Rights Commission v. State of Gujarat (2009) – [Post-Godhra Riots]
Background:
In response to the 2002 Gujarat riots, NHRC filed a case demanding justice for victims.
Legal Actions:
Supreme Court constituted Special Investigation Teams (SITs).
Court monitored investigations into mass killings and rapes.
Outcome:
Several convictions, including in the Naroda Patiya case (97 Muslims killed), where BJP MLA Maya Kodnani was sentenced to 28 years (later acquitted in appeal in 2018).
Importance:
Recognition of systemic failure of justice.
Referred to the scale and communal nature of violence as crimes against humanity.
✅ 5. Hashimpura Massacre Case (2018) – [State v. Surender Pal Singh & Others]
Background:
In 1987, during communal riots in Meerut, 19 PAC (Provincial Armed Constabulary) personnel rounded up and executed 42 Muslim men in cold blood.
Legal Journey:
Delay of over 30 years.
Trial court acquitted all 16 accused in 2015 citing lack of evidence.
Delhi High Court in 2018 reversed the acquittal.
Outcome:
All accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Court said:
“It was a targeted killing of unarmed and defenceless people belonging to a particular community.”
Importance:
Clear state-perpetrated violence with genocidal overtones.
Showed how slow justice can destroy accountability.
🔍 ANALYSIS
| Issue | India’s Response |
|---|---|
| Genocide Definition | Not in IPC or special law |
| International Convention | Signed but not implemented |
| Prosecution of Mass Atrocities | Done under IPC provisions |
| Judicial Recognition | Courts occasionally use terms like “crimes against humanity” |
| State Complicity | Seen in several cases (1984, 2002, 1987) |
| Need for Reform | Strong need for a domestic genocide law |
🧾 CONCLUSION
India has witnessed several episodes of mass communal violence that meet many criteria of genocide, but lack of specific legislation means they are prosecuted as ordinary crimes. Courts have sometimes used strong language like “crimes against humanity,” but this lacks binding legal force.
There is an urgent need for:
Legislation implementing the Genocide Convention
Victim protection and speedy trials
Accountability for political or police complicity
RELATED Blog
0 comments