0

Mob Lynching and Its place in legal system

Articles , , , , , , ,

Abstract

This article is based on the problem of mob lynching in India and what are the existing legal system on this issue, it further deals with the supreme court ruling and governmental steps on this problem and also gives a way forward to deal with this issue.

Article

“The Supreme Court on July 28 asked the Centre and at least six States to respond to a plea about lynchings and mob violence refusing to stop. the plea said gruesome incidents of mob fury and vigilantism continue to happen despite a five-year-old apex court judgment, which had made the government machinery squarely accountable for protecting the lives of victims, including minority community members.”[1]

The term “mob lynching” describes targeted violence committed by a sizable crowd, including crimes against people’s bodies or property, whether public or private. The mob takes the law into their own hands while disregarding legal guidelines and processes because they feel they are punishing the victim for some perceived violation, even if it is not necessarily criminal. The values of justice, human rights, and the rule of law are all transgressed by the horrific and unlawful act of mob lynching. It is a sort of vigilantism that violates the fundamental principles of a civilised society, according to which everyone should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and the judicial system should be in charge of delivering justice. Mob lynching instances have happened all throughout the world, and they are frequently motivated by ingrained societal problems, discrimination, and a lack of faith in the legal system. These actions not only cause fatalities but also spread fear and instability throughout communities.

Mark Twain, in an unpublished response to a racial lynching in Missouri in 1901, provided a poignant warning about the perils of mob violence. He foresaw the potential transformation of America into “The United States of Lyncherdom” Fast forward more than a century later, the secular republic of India finds itself grappling with a similar apprehension. The specter of mob violence looms over the nation, posing significant risks to its social fabric and values.

The rise of problem of mob lynching or mob violence is due to the various reasons as –

Factors contributing to the rise of mob lynching can be summarized as follows:

  • Prejudice: Hate crimes that result from biases and prejudices among various castes, classes, and religious groups drive mob lynching. These prejudices foster a hostile climate that encourages violent acts against certain people or communities.
  • Lack of Speedy Justice: One of the main causes of mob violence is the delayed and ineffective operation of the legal system. People may take matters into their own hands and seek immediate retaliation without concern for the repercussions when they lose trust in the judicial system and think that justice will not be delivered quickly.
  • Ineffectiveness of Police Administration: Another factor in the growth of mob lynchings is the inefficiency of police investigations and the public’s mistrust of the police. People may turn to vigilante measures to right perceived wrongs when they believe the authorities are either incapable or unwilling to do so.

These elements work together to produce a potentially dangerous climate where mob lynching episodes might happen. Combating biases and prejudices, bolstering the judicial system to ensure quick trials and just verdicts, enhancing the effectiveness and accountability of law enforcement, and fostering a climate of tolerance and respect for the rule of law are all necessary to solve this issue.

But one of the main reasons of increasing cases of mob lynching is because of increase in Cow vigilantism cases, Cows are revered and held in high regard in the Hindu religion. This attitude occasionally gives birth to “cow vigilantism,” in which certain people or organisations utilise the law to defend cows from fictitious dangers. This attitude frequently results in violence against those who are suspected of killing cows or eating animal products. In these situations, the majority commits violence against the minority groups. Along with cow vigilantism there is also increasing instances of religious vigilantism, where extremists from an intolerant religious group targets a person who raises or speaks against their religion.

Most infamous case of cow vigilantism was of Alwar, Rajasthan in the year 2017, when one Pehlu Khan, a 55-yearold Diary-Farmer was lynched in broad daylight by six men on the accusation of cow killing and beef consumption. On April 1, 2017, Khan, his two sons, and a few other people were moving livestock from Jaipur when they were stopped and beaten by cow vigilantes close to Behror in Alwar. And the Alwar court acquitted the six men giving them a benefit of doubt in august 2019 and after an appeal by the sons of the victim, Rajasthan High Court ordered Bailable warrants against the accused and the matter is still pending with no glimpse of justice.

As per a report by IndiaSpend, basing itself on the content analysis of news reports, concludes that “In the first six months of 2017, 20 cow-terror attacks were reported–more than 75 per cent of the 2016 figure, which was the worst year for such violence since 2010. The attacks include mob lynching, attacks by vigilantes, murder and attempt to murder, harassment, assault and gang-rape. In two attacks, the victims/survivors were chained, stripped and beaten, while in two others, the victims were hanged. Another analysis of mob violence and public disorder between January 2011 and June 2017 on Observer Research Analysis, shows that cow-related violence has spiked up dramatically from five per cent of the total incidents (of Lynching or Public Disorder) to over 20 per cent by the end of June 2017.”[2]

Suprisingly the National Crime Record Bureau stopped recording these crimes since 2017, as stating the data as unrealiable.

There are several many cases of mob violence where victims were killed by a mob and family still seeks justice for them.

One of the reasons for this delay is because of absence specific laws on mob lynching but section 223(a) of CrPC which held that –

“persons accused of the same offence committed in the course same transaction;”[3]

The Supreme Court established a number of preventative, corrective, and punitive procedures to deal with lynching and mob violence in the case of Tahseen s. Poonawala v. UOI in July 2017. In this case, the Supreme Court used the phrase “horrendous act of mobocracy” to describe mob lynching and it also insisted various states to take preventive actions on this issue.

But another problem arises of non-implementation as, “On December 22, 2018, the Manipur Assembly passed the Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Bill while the Rajasthan Assembly passed the Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill on August 5, 2019. Similarly, the West Bengal Assembly passed the West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill on August 30, 2019. The Uttar Pradesh law commission submitted a report on mob lynching and a draft bill in July 2019. In the same year, the Madhya Pradesh government led by the then chief minister Kamal Nath had proposed an amendment to the existing law against cow slaughter to deal with the cases of lynching. But there has been no headway in both these states.”[4]

Now what should be the way forward to this, firstly, we need dedicated fast track courts in this matter which can dispose these cases in short time setting precedents and fear in the mind of others who can fulfil their secret vendetta against a person with this act. Secondly, their should be proper victim compensation scheme implemented to support the victim’s family and free treatment should be provided to injured. Lastly, there should be a special task force established in each district to be the first response force to such act and where they can protect the victim thus not causing any casualty.

Lynchings are not appropriate in an Indian democracy. It is critical that mob violence be eliminated in a nation that takes pleasure in being democratic. unsettlingly, the police’s inactivity in times of mob violence is frequently met with popular approval of the officers’ extrajudicial penalties. Consequently, it’s crucial to increase public confidence in legal processes. States like Manipur, West Bengal, and Rajasthan have proposed comprehensive laws on the subject, and all states and the federal government should follow suit. It is necessary to take action to stop the spread of false information and hate speech.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

 

[1] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-seeks-centre-states-response-on-nfiw-plea-sounding-the-alarm-on-lynchings-mob-fury/article67131163.ece

[2] https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/07/04/mob-lynchings-in-india-a-look-at-data-and-the-story-behind-the-numbers

[3] Section 223(a) of CrPC

[4] https://www.outlookindia.com/national/spectre-of-mob-lynchings-continues-to-haunt-india-amid-lacklustre-laws-news-193743

0

Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition on the grounds of inordinate delay with no grounds for condonation.

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Title: MONIKA GUPTA Versus SANJAY BANSAL

Date of Decision: 19.07.2023

+ RFA(OS) 59/2019 & CM APPL. 19452/2022

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

     HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

Introduction

Delhi High Court dismissed the review petition on as the petitioner was lackadaisical in filing the review and there is no ground of reason to back this Inordinate delay of more than 1600 days.

Facts of the case

The appellant filed the current application in an effort to excuse the existing appeal’s 1969-day filing delay. The petitioner has chosen the current internal court appeal in opposition to a decision made on August 27, 2014, known as “the impugned order,” the respondent’s claim for particular judgement was heard by the learned Single Judge, wherein It was mandated to perform. According to the contested order, the parties had signed a contract to sell a piece of land known as Plot. Number 68, 50.40 square metres, Pocket 11, Block G, Sector 11, ‘The suit property’ in Rohini, New Delhi-110085, is up for sale Consideration in the amount of Rs. 80 lakhs.

The plaintiff said that on May 7, 2012—the day the Agreement to Sell was signed—it had paid the appellant/defendant a payment totaling Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs). At the time of the Sale Deed’s execution, the remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs) was due to be paid on or by May 15, 2012. The learned Single Judge observed that the defendant/appellant had not filed a written statement and that it was not on record despite having had enough opportunity to do so. Additionally, the appellant did not show up in front of the relevant court on the dates when the case was heard.

As a result, the respondent/plaintiff’s request for particular execution of the Agreement to Sell dated 07.05.2012 was granted by the learned Single Judge, who also decreed the suit.

Analysis of the court

The appellant claims that the respondent failed to file the reply despite being given enough opportunity to do so, which contributed significantly to the delay in the processes surrounding the review petition.

The appellant supported his claim by citing the ruling in the case of DSR Steel (Private) Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2012) 6 SCC 782, which held that the time spent by the party pursuing the review petition must not be taken into account when considering whether to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. He called this Court’s attention to paragraph 25.3 of the aforementioned ruling.

The appellant receives no benefit from the aforementioned ruling. Contrarily, the Court has mandated that the time spent by the party actively pursuing the remedy of review be excluded in suitable situations. In this instance, we determine that the appellant pursued its review petition in a careless manner, and we are unable to believe that the appellant did so conscientiously.

 It is obvious that the current appeal has been filed with excessive delay, and court finds no reason to excuse this.

 As a result, the appeal is denied.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

0

Delhi High Court dismissed the petition and held that the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India does not substitute its view for the view of the competent authority.

Blog , , , , , , ,

Title: RABINDRA KUMAR SAHA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment delivered on: 18th July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 9118/2023 & CM APPL. 34697/2023

CORAM:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

Introduction

The fact that the petitioner’s term has been reduced alone does not mean that the decision was not made with the organization’s best interests in mind.  The Delhi High Court denied the plea and ruled that, in using its powers granted by Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, the court cannot substitute its own judgement for that of the appropriate authorities.

Facts of the case

The petitioner requests the quashing of the decision dated 09.06.2023, among other things, on the grounds that it is against the posting policies issued by the respondent on 14.05.1999 and 15.01.2013. Additionally, the petitioner asks the respondent to issue a directive allowing him to keep his position as Chief Engineer (P) at Project Chetak.

By the impugned order dated 09.06.2023, petitioner has been posted to Headquarters, Director General Border Road (DGBR) at New Delhi.

The petitioner challenges the ruling on the grounds that the petitioner’s posting duration was reduced from the customary tenure of two to three years. Furthermore, it is argued that the correct and mandated posting and transfer procedure was not followed in this particular instance. The petitioner’s claims that the proper posting procedure requires the suggestion of posting at his level to be routed via the Additional Director General (HQs) for determination at the level of DGBR.

Analysis of the court

It is a well-established legal principle that the Court, when exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, does not replace the opinion of the competent authority with its own. The decision was made by the appropriate authority, the DGBR, taking into account organisational restrictions and organisational interest. The fact that the petitioner’s term has been reduced on its own does not mean that the decision was not made with the organization’s best interests in mind.

The posting policy, which the petitioner also cites, states that postings must take organisational needs into account and that these needs would take precedence over all other factors.

Given the structure of the organisation, the officer’s personal interests will take a back seat to organisational and functional requirements, which will take precedence over all other factors. There is no question that the Director General of Border Road is the senior and most competent authority with regard to posting. The contested posting order was issued by the Director General Border Road, or DGBR, of the relevant authority.

The competent authority has taken into account both the petitioner’s representation and the ADG (North-West)’s proposal, but due to organisational limitations, he has chosen not to recall either and has rejected the representation.

Additionally, we reject the claim made by the petitioner’s knowledgeable attorney that the proper procedure was not followed. The Director General Border Roads has final say in all matters.

It is not implied that the responsible authority did not take into account all pertinent factors and organisational interest only because it is claimed that the suggestion for the posting was not routed through the ADG (HQs). It is also undisputed that the ADG (HQs) recommendations are not binding on the DGBR, the final decision authority, as the DGBR is a superior authority to the ADG (HQs). It is also undisputed that the DGBR has the authority to reject the ADG’s recommendations.

We believe that the decision made by the competent authority, the DGBR, does not require interference even if there was a procedural error in not passing the file through the ADG (HQs), given that the DGBR has already considered the recommendation and representation and taken a decision in the organization’s best interest. The respondent’s argument that the file should not be sent to ADG (HQs) and that correct procedure has already been followed is, of course, unaffected by this.

we find that no malafide can be attributed to the respondent and impugned posting order does not warrant any interference by this Court.

Merely because there is an instance of an officer whose posting orders have been repeatedly changed citing organizational interest would not imply that in the case of the petitioner, organizational interest has not been kept in mind.

we find that there is no infirmity in the posting order or that the same warrants interference in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. We find no merit in the petition.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

0

Delhi High Court Dismissed the writ of certiorari and granted petitioner liberty to argue their matter before Armed forces tribunal

Blog , , , , , , , , , ,

Title: LT COL PRAVAL PETER RETD & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Reserved on: 14th July, 2023

Pronounced on: 18 th July, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 3042/2023 & CM APPL. 11815/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHNADRA SHARMA

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Introduction

Delhi High Court Dismissed the writ of certiorari and granted petitioner liberty to argue their matter before Armed forces tribunal, Keeping in mind the principles outlined in the judgment of Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar and also keeping in mind a more prudent redressal path for petitioner which is more efficient and effective.

Facts of the case

The petitioners, who were ‘premature retirees’ from the Indian Army and Air Force, held Permanent Commissions before their early retirement. According to them, their retirement pension and other perks were Due to their failure to fulfil the required twenty years of service, which is a requirement for getting a full pro-rata service pension, it was unjustly denied to them.

The Petitioners were allegedly forced to retire early after successfully completing 10 years of service, but before reaching the twenty-year milestone, due to reasons beyond their control. Despite the fact that this early exit was approved by the appropriate authority, the petitioners argued that the respondents had conveniently ignored the pre-commissioning military training and reserve service periods, which when taken into account would total more than the required twenty years of service for the grant of a service pension. They should be qualified for the pension because these periods were essential and contributed to their overall service time.

The Petitioners demand service pension, even on a pro rata basis, due to them on reason of their early retirement, based on the afore-noted inconsistencies in computation of their service periods and application of criteria for providing benefits to them.

They had previously filed a writ petition [W.P.(C) 11893/2021], but due to the nature of the reliefs requested, it was rejected by order dated October 22, 2021, with the liberty to continue agitating the subject by launching a public interest lawsuit [“PIL”].

Petitioners elucidated their personal interest in the matter and urged the Court to consider their case within the ambit of the aforesaid writ petition, rather than as a PIL.

The policy dated February 19, 1987, which reportedly served as the basis for Respondents’ decision to deny benefits of pro-rata pension and other benefits like pension commutation and ex-servicemen status, was among the policies that Petitioners sought to have declared invalid in the instant petition in the nature of a PIL. They also sought a writ of certiorari to overturn the existing policy, non-statutory pension regulations, and other related instructions.

Analysis of the court

According to Regulation 34 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 2008, which stipulates a minimum qualifying service of twenty years as a prerequisite for officers to receive service or retiring pension, the impugned communication, dated April 24th, 2019, cited in the aforementioned prayer clause, is Respondents’ decision.

Respondents claim that because the Petitioners are considered premature retirees, they are not eligible to benefit from Ministry of Defence policy dated 19th February, 1987.

It is important to emphasise at this point that the Petitioners fall under the purview of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, and have access to a specialised forum for airing their complaints, the Armed Forces Tribunal (the “AFT”). However, the Petitioners opted to file a writ petition before this Court given to the ambiguity surrounding AFT’s ability to consider issues about the constitutionality of subordinate legislations, including rules, regulations, notices, and circulars.

Fortunately for the Petitioners, a recent decision by the full bench of this Court in Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar v. Union of India and Others, W.P.(C) 9139/2019, has clarified the issue surrounding the competence of the AFT to entertain petitions challenging circulars, statutory rules, regulations, and policies. The court held that the Armed Forces Tribunal is competent to hear the challenge to the vires of the subordinate legislations, rules, regulations, notification.

We feel that the AFT, given its specialised character, would provide a more swift determination for the Petitioners’ complaints given the recent clarification provided by the judgement mentioned above and taking into account the larger circumstances. There is no question that the Petitioners have a direct, personal interest in the issue, which usually precludes using a PIL. We are also aware that the petitioners who filed the current PIL did so with the freedom provided by a coordination bench, and that their perception of our decision to refer their case to the AFT may be unjust given that they have been exploring legal options since 2021 without receiving any redress.

However, our understanding relating to the jurisdiction of the AFT, has evolved in the wake of the judgment referenced above. Therefore, it becomes prudent to steer the Petitioners towards a path of redressal that is more fitting, efficient, and effective i.e., the AFT.

The current PIL is dismissed, together with any related ongoing petitions. The Petitioners are given the freedom to express the complaints made in their petition before the Armed Forces Tribunal while keeping in mind the guidelines provided in the aforementioned Squadron Leader Neelam Chahar judgement.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

click to view the judgement

0

Delhi High Court Set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and held that appellant cannot be saddled with contributory negligence merely on the basis of his cross-examination.

Blog , , , , , , , ,

Title: DILIP KUMAR SAH versus PARSHOTAM ALIAS PURSHOTAM LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ANR.

Date of decision:18thJuly, 2023

+ MAC.APP. 133/2021

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Introduction

Delhi High Court set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of appellant and granted him the benefits of permanent disability and also held that appellant cannot be saddled with contributory negligence merely on the basis of his cross-examination.

Facts of the case

In MACT case number 174/2017, captioned Sh.Dilip Kumar Sah v. Sh. Parshotam @ Purshotam Lal & Anr., the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal issued an award on January 13, 2021, which is being challenged in this appeal.

The appellant’s two grounds for the limited challenge to the contested award are as follows:

  1. a) Despite neither the owner of the at-fault vehicle nor the insurance company having submitted a written statement alleging any contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the learned Tribunal has assigned the appellant 40% contributory negligence, reducing the compensation granted to the appellant;
  2. b) Despite the fact that the appellant’s right lower limb was deemed to have a 41% permanent handicap, the appellant has not received any compensation for his future possibilities.

Analysis of the court

It is undisputed that neither the owner nor the insurance company provided the learned Tribunal with a written statement. The significance of pleadings cannot be understated, even if the learned Tribunal will only conduct an inquiry rather than a full-fledged trial as in a civil complaint. Therefore, the respondent did not blame the appellant for any contributory carelessness in their arguments. Only during the cross-examination of the appellant was the appellant prompted to describe how the accident occurred. The appellant vehemently refuted any allegation that he may have contributed to the catastrophe.

Reading the cross-examination of the appellant would reveal that he claimed to be riding a rickshaw across the main road from left to right. The same cannot, in my opinion, be regarded as contributory carelessness. Although the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed and the driver was unable to control the vehicle or apply the brakes at the appropriate moment, the learned Tribunal, influenced by the foregoing, in the impugned Award assigned 40% of the negligence to the appellant.

The learned Tribunal manifestly erred in assuming that the appellant might be charged with contributory carelessness only on the basis of his cross-examination in the absence of any pleading assigning contributory fault to the appellant.

Therefore, the contested award is revoked to this degree.

On the subject of the appellant’s future prospects not being granted, reliance has once more been put on the appellant’s cross-examination, which has been reported above. Reading the cross-examination will reveal that the appellant was not questioned about whether the accident he sustained had any impact on his ability to earn money or do his job. According to his disability certificate, the appellant’s right lower limb has a 41% permanent impairment. The learned Tribunal determined that the appellant’s entire body had a 20% functional impairment. There is no argument against the erudite Tribunal’s conclusion.

In Pappu Deo Yadav (supra), the Supreme Court allowed for a 40% reduction in future possibilities. In my opinion, the appellant should be allowed that fair degree of loss of future chances under the circumstances of the current case as well. The appellant used to pedal the rickshaw by himself while conducting business at a weekly market selling clothing. The appellant is deemed entitled to compensation under the heading of loss of future prospect at the rate of 40% due to a permanent handicap to his lower limb. As a result, the impugned Award, to the extent that it denies the appellant compensation for the loss of future prospects, is set aside, and is modified granting such compensation. 

The learned Tribunal is required to reassess the amount of compensation due to the appellant under the provisions of the contested award as amended by the current ruling. On August 20, 2023, the parties must appear before the knowledgeable Tribunal. The awarded amount, including the augmentation directed under the current judgement, along with interest thereon, shall be disbursed in favour of the appellant in line with the schedule set down by the learned Tribunal upon deposit of the re-determined/enhanced amount.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By – Shreyanshu Gupta

Click to review the judgement

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 27