Prosecution Of Sectarian Violence And Extremist Groups

I. Introduction to Sectarian Violence and Extremist Groups

Sectarian violence involves conflicts between different religious, ethnic, or communal groups, often leading to serious public disorder, loss of life, and damage to property.

Extremist groups are organizations that promote violence to achieve ideological, religious, or political goals, frequently through terror tactics, hate crimes, or incitement to violence.

II. Legal Framework for Prosecution

The prosecution of such cases primarily involves:

Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections dealing with offences against public tranquility and communal harmony, including:

Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups)

Section 153B (Imputations prejudicial to national-integration)

Section 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings)

Section 302 (Murder), 307 (Attempt to murder), and others.

The Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) (now repealed), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and other special laws for extremist groups.

The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) provisions for investigation and trial.

III. Challenges in Prosecution

Gathering reliable evidence in volatile communal settings.

Witness intimidation and reluctance to testify.

Political and social pressure.

Identifying and linking individuals to extremist groups.

IV. Landmark Cases on Prosecution of Sectarian Violence and Extremist Groups

1. The Best Bakery Case (2006) – Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh vs State of Gujarat

Facts:

During the 2002 Gujarat riots, 14 people were killed at the Best Bakery.

The case involved allegations of police complicity and witness intimidation.

Held:

Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance due to failure in the trial court.

Transferred the case outside Gujarat to ensure a free and fair trial.

Emphasized the role of the judiciary in protecting witnesses and ensuring justice in communal violence cases.

Importance:

Landmark judgment ensuring impartial prosecution in communal riot cases.

Strengthened witness protection and judicial oversight.

2. In Re: The Gulbarg Society Case (2009) – State of Gujarat vs Sajjan Kumar

Facts:

Sajjan Kumar, a political leader, was accused of inciting mobs leading to the killing of 69 people in Gulbarg Society during 2002 riots.

Held:

After years of investigation and trial, the court convicted Sajjan Kumar.

Held that public servants and politicians cannot be allowed to use communal violence as a political tool.

Emphasized that hate speech and incitement must be punished strictly.

Importance:

Reinforced accountability of political leaders in sectarian violence.

Highlighted the role of thorough investigation and trial.

3. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010)

Facts:

Case related to extremist violence committed by a radical group.

Held:

The Supreme Court laid down that prosecution of extremist acts must be firm but balanced to prevent misuse of laws.

Emphasized need for careful evidence collection, respecting constitutional rights while protecting public safety.

Importance:

Balanced approach between civil liberties and national security.

Cautioned against overbroad application of anti-extremist laws.

4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Facts:

Though primarily related to federalism, it dealt with misuse of state machinery and communal bias in governance.

Held:

Supreme Court stressed secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.

Asserted the role of state machinery in preventing communal violence and prosecution of extremist acts.

Directed strict action against those inciting communal hatred.

Importance:

Strengthened constitutional commitment to secularism.

Provided jurisprudential basis for combating sectarian violence.

5. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2017)

Facts:

Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali was charged with terrorism-related offences and inciting communal hatred.

Held:

Supreme Court upheld stringent prosecution under UAPA.

Affirmed that the State has power to act decisively against individuals and groups indulging in extremist activities.

Emphasized due process but also the need for effective counter-terrorism measures.

Importance:

Affirmed robust legal tools to prosecute extremist groups.

Balanced approach to prosecution respecting constitutional rights.

V. Summary Table of Cases

CasePrinciple Established
Best Bakery Case (2006)Judicial intervention to protect witnesses & ensure fair trial in communal violence cases
Gulbarg Society Case (2009)Accountability of political leaders in inciting sectarian violence
Tukaram S. Dighole (2010)Balanced prosecution of extremist acts with respect to civil liberties
S.R. Bommai (1994)Secularism as constitutional mandate, state responsibility in curbing communal violence
NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2017)Affirmed stringent prosecution powers under anti-terror laws with due process

VI. Conclusion

Prosecution of sectarian violence and extremist groups involves complex legal, social, and political challenges. Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in:

Ensuring fair trials despite hostile environments.

Protecting witness identities and rights.

Holding political leaders and extremist actors accountable.

Upholding constitutional values of secularism and unity.

The case laws above reflect evolving jurisprudence balancing individual rights and public safety in the face of communal and extremist violence.

LEAVE A COMMENT

0 comments