One is innocent till he is proven guilty by the Court

Disha Agrawal | ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad | 30th June 2020

Tehseen Poonawalla V. Union of India

Introduction 

There cannot be a right higher than the right to live with dignity and further to be treated with humanness that the law provides. In recent years, a lot of incidents came up where the individual has been lynched by the mobs in the name of cow vigilantism. That individual being an innocent or guilty. Cow vigilantism involves mob attacks in the name of “cow protection” targeting mostly illegal cow smuggler, but in some case innocents i.e., licensed cow traders have been lynched. In most of the incidents it was later found out that it was a fake controversy and the story was generated by hate propaganda and there was hardly any truth which led to the lynched of the innocent peoples.

Facts

There was a huge protest going on for such incidents and people from different 
places have raised their voice for the innocent people who got lynched in disguise of fake news. The petitioner Tehseen Poonawalla, a social activist has filed a petition in the court for direction and intervention against the cow protection groups indulging in violence and further to issue a direction for remove the violent contents from various platforms of social media uploaded by these groups.

Issue

Foremost issue was to take immediate action against such vigilant and fringe groups which are spreading violence in the name of the garb of cow protection. Another relief was to removal of inflammatory contents from the social media platforms which has been circulated by the said groups.

Judgement

The decision was given by the three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Deepak Mishra, it was held the act of lynching as unlawful and condemned the inhumane act of cow vigilantes. The  Supreme Court has issued following guidelines after hearing the matter:

• Measures for preventing the incidents – A senior inspector shall be appointed as Nodal Officer by the state government in ach district who will look into this matter. Police officer must use his power under Section 129 of Criminal Procedure Code,1973, in order to deal with the matter of mob lynching and if he think that any situation may arise. The state Government should recognise the area where previously same incidents od mob violence and lynching occurred, where the personnel supposed to be extra cautious

• Remedies for the incidents – The FIR about such incidents much be lodged immediately. And where the FIR has been lodged must forward it to the Nodal officer. The investigation must monitored by Nodal Officer and the charge sheet should be filed timely. Fast track courts or special courts is to be established for speedy trial. The trial should be concluded with 6 months from the commencement of the trail.  A compensation scheme should be formulated and free legal aid is to be provided to the victim or his next of kin. Maximum sentence is to be awarded in order to set a staunch example in cases of mob violence and lynching when an accused is found guilty.

• The criminalisation of such activities – If it is found that the officer or public office has not been abided by law to facilitate the expeditious trial of incident of mob violence and mob lynching, then it shall be considered as deliberate negligence and misconduct. Even if he don’t prevent such incident of which he was aware of, the action is to be taken by the concerned government against such officer.

Analysis

The judgment has been delivered in three parts i.e., preventive, remedial and punitive. And there more focus has been laid down in punitive measures, so that the conduct of the crime can be stopped in the initial stage. This is why the court has instructed to have special force to deal with this issue.  So that there will not be much delay in investigating the case of mob lynching. An effecting suggestion was made by Senior Counsel Ms. Indira Singh, that there should police patrolling in the sensitive area, but no such initiative has been taken by concerned authorities. Moreover, it has been observed in certain instances, there has been complained made by victim’s family that because of the delay made by the police officers results in the death of the victim. Otherwise the effective deployment of the police officers could have prevented the crime from taking place. 

Conclusion

Same as, when one is allowed to fight for his right in legal system, the other is allowed to be treated as innocent till he is found guilty by the court. The people of the organisation associated with the cow protection or compassion have no right to take law into their own hand. Even their motive is very correct it is for society but the way to reach their motive should be lawful, it should not be illegal. They do this to curb the illegal act of the people of transporting animal and all, but to remove the wrong one should not do the wrong.  The supremacy of law has to be recognised i.e., if a crime has been prescribed in law, it further provides the process under the law to do so, the procedural and substantial safeguard are required to be followed. There is no need of public to take law into their hand.