Mob Lynching in India: Politics, Law and Solution

Abstract

The mob lynching is often seen in India and it has become common in recent time. The reason behind lynching done by a mob because they lost faith in law and justice due to power misusage under law and politics. We live in place where law and politics is been equal praised as well as hesitated. So, none of us doesn’t have stand on one thing. Just because everyone changes or act according to the situation in order to protect themselves and survive. So, when there is inequality in law and politics it leads to a mob lynching in particular society against the law and politics. Mob lynching is well known through Dadri incident in India.

Lynching means the death of someone by a mob without legal approval. The major reasons of mob lynching in India are caste, religion, region, politics, witch hunting and intolerance. This paper will be dealing with a study on various cases identifying with lynching all over India. And also, mob lynching in India has been on different issues which has been observed by the political parties of the country from their own point of view and whether the place is on the road or in the parliament, they use it to achieve their own personal political motives.

This is all due to one thing i.e. law is meant for paper rather than for people (when we compare it to actual scenario).

Introduction

Mob is the English means an unbridled or disorderly crowd. Lynching can be called an Americo-Latin term, i.e. a death sentence without any legal proceeding. Therefore, Mob lynching means bypassing the law by a group of people to enforce justice on what they consider to be right. Many innocent people have been affected, and some have even lost their lives for no crimes at all.

There are so many motives for mob lynching, such as bigotry, casteism, theft, kidnapping, rape, Romeo squire, anti-nationalism, witch-hunting, class conflict, and political reasons. Mob lynching activity poses a question mark on the rule of law as a bunch of people themselves become the law, the judge and the executioner themselves.

In Mob Lynching involvement of mob is certain, the process and the kind of violence are also somehow the same though the reasons, basis, and circumstances can be different. These crimes take place when people get incited by hatred and anger and get ready to take law into their own hands. This violence is named as hate crimes based on the hate of people towards particular community, religion, region, caste or sex. It is very crucial to think that why the people suddenly consider a person harmful for the whole society and take such a drastic decision of killing him or her. Lynching is an unlawful murder by the mindless and morally corrupt mob. Mob lynching is not a new phenomenon in India, during 1857 revolt mobs attacked British civilians, in 1947 partition mobs attacked families, individuals in villages, cities and even burned properties of people of a different religion. Lastly, mob violence during communal conflagrations, such as during Sikhs (1984), Christians Kandamahal riots (2009), Muslims, Bombay riots (1992), Gujarat (2002), Muzaffarnagar (2013), and Baksa riots (2015), most recently.

Mob lynching has not been mentioned under the Indian Legal System and also there is no specific law or punishment is available for lynching. This makes the people to practice the lynching in society thinking that there is no law on it.

Reasons and incidents of Mob Lynching

Recently increased Mob Lynching in India reveals a disturbing barbarous human behavior. Mob Lynching includes in the eyes of the Mob involved in lynching the injury or murder of a person who is a criminal or accused of a crime against the community. Some of the prominent mob lynching cases that have occurred in India are as follows:

Caste and Religious

Violence in the name of caste and religion is deeply rooted in India. Increased cases of mob lynching are mostly the result of intolerance and hatred of other religions and caste in the name of religion, practicing, traditions, and caw. In September 2015, a group of Hindu Mob lynched Mohammad Akhlaq and his Danish son accused them of stealing and slaughtering cow-calf and storing meat for consumption in the Bidara village of UP, identified as the first case of a Hindu Mob lynching a Muslim in the name of cow or beef. The incident became famous for being Dadri Lynching and brought shame to the country.

In August 2018, Rakbar and his associate were moving cows on foot. He was targeted by the VHP Gau Raksha on suspicion of being a cow smuggler. He died in police custody (Express, 2018). According to a recent report, there have been 24 cases of lynching and vigilante abuse, resulting in the murder of 34 people and the rape of two women, most of them after 2015, in recent years and the victims belonged to the Muslim minority community and the Dakit family.

Other minority communities, along with the Muslim community, were also threatened by lynching groups. Attacks on Christians remain unreported, but incidents involving churches and priests accused of converting Hindus to Christianity continue.

So, in the name of faith and belief on something they are lynching which are against the law and this make them to blame law simple just because this activity is supported in society.

Economic and Political

Economy and politics have always played a major role in mob lynching. In the villages, mob lynching is the easiest way to get land and property. It's easy to collect the crowd by making race, caste, sex a political agenda. In India, some of the political parties and groups are historically based on religion and caste, which spread hatred in society to play their political card during the elections, resulting in mob attacks.

It is the modest and most ideal approach to win the political race in India as the vast majority of the number of inhabitants in India is a strict, superstitious and enthusiastic trick. Also, they rouse ideas to enrapture the general public and exploit as political increase.

Mob Justice

Due to unawareness of legal provisions and consequences of breaching the law, less strictness from police, and slow process of legal mechanism, people of India endeavor to be judge and to do justice themselves by defining their own rules and regulations. In February 2016 the JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar, arrested on sedition charges, was beaten up by lawyers while he was being produced at Patiala House Court. In May 2017, an e-rickshaw driver was lynched by a mob of students from Delhi University. The incident occurred after the driver had stopped two drunken students from urinating in public which later they had returned with a group of students to lynch the driver (First Post, 2017). In this the mob believes justice by the way they think and due to which innocent people get affected.

Witch hunting

Witch hunting is the historical problem in India which is wholly based on mob lynching “Witch-hunting' includes branding a woman as a witch, mostly after an Ojha confirms that a woman is a witch, the process of prosecution and execution of that woman, often involving mass hysteria and lynching (The Prevention of Witch hunting Bill, 2016). Witch hunting literally means molesting and killing a woman believed to have evil magic power.

Law and order on Mob Lynching

Legislations

Mob Lynching is an intolerable wrongdoing and gross viciousness of human rights yet there is no national law on crowd lynching despite the fact that India has a long history on lynching. Notwithstanding, National enactment, for example, the Constitution of India, the Indian Penal Code and The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 can be connected with the lynching offenses. National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB), the chief wellspring of legitimate insights on wrongdoing in India, doesn't record the specific instances of lynching. Segment 223(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives that 'people or a horde engaged with a similar offense in a similar demonstration can be attempted together'.

In any case, a similar arrangement has not been utilized to convey equity up until now.

Occurrences of lynching are commonly detailed under segment 302 for homicide, 307 for the endeavor to kill, 324 for causing hurt, 147 for revolting of the Indian Penal Code, etc. Arrangements, for example, area 153A (advancing ill will among gatherings and acts biased to support of congruity); 153Bacts biased to upkeep of national reconciliation), 295A (acts planned to shock strict sentiments); and 295B (words proposed to offend ) of the Indian Penal Code are viewed as the abhor wrongdoing law in India. It is seen that in a large portion of the lynching cases these arrangements have excluded from police First Information Reports against the charged. In addition, even where loathe wrongdoing has been recorded under these segments, information isn't given disaggregated by personality gatherings. There is no real way to know at that point, the contrast between the 'person in question' and the 'culprit'.

Comparative is the situation of 'collective brutality' that discovers notice in NCRB reports, with a bit of recording of the office who was the person in question, and who the culprits. In conclusion, best case scenario, the above are preservationist laws that make an offense, when request and amicability, are upset and strict sentiments hurt. There is little that punishes activity that is 'detest enlivened', and which verifiably includes wrongdoings by dominant part bunches against a powerless network. 'Despise violations are demonstrations of viciousness and terrorizing, generally coordinated towards as of now defamed and minimized gatherings'.

Therefore, there is no counting of abhor wrongdoing as a detriment to these minorities. Without authentic records, it is media reports and the odd academic works that are the principle wellsprings of loathe wrongdoing information against strict minorities in India however these are not satisfactory. There are some global and national instruments which bolster the casualties of crowd lynching. For example, Article 7, of Universal Declaration of Human Rights gives Equality under the steady gaze of the law, and equivalent assurance of the law, and the security against separation. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights likewise expresses that 'any promotion of national, racial or strict disdain that comprises an actuation to segregation, antagonistic vibe or viciousness will be restricted by law'.

Judicial approach

In Landmark judgment Tehseen S Poonawala and others V. Union of India1 on 17 July, 2018, comprising a three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud of Supreme Court recommended that the enactment of special law on mob lynching by the parliament may take place as “fear of law and veneration for the command of law constitute the foundation of a civilized society”. The present writ petition was preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution to take immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence. During explaining the importance of safeguarding of constitutional and statutory law, of every individual court, cited the Krishnamoorthy case.

In Krishnamoorthy case of 2015 Supreme Court stated that “the law is the mightiest sovereign in a civilized society. The majesty of law cannot be sullied simply because an individual or a group generate the attitude that they have been empowered by the principles set out in law to take its enforcement into their own hands and gradually become law unto themselves and punish the violator on their own assumption and in the manner in which they deem fit.” The Court observed that “no one is allowed to take law into his own hands on the fancy of his shallow spirit of judgment. Just as one is entitled to fight for his rights in law, the other is entitled to be treated as innocent till he is found guilty after a fair trial”.

In Nandini Sundar and others v. State of Chhattisgarh Court opined that “it is the duty of the States, as to strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens so that the dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted. Court held that to prevent such incidents is the responsibility of the States. In Mohd Haroon and others v. Union of India and another case it is held that “it is the responsibility of the State Administration in association with the intelligence agencies of both the State and the Centre to prevent recurrence of communal violence in any part of the State. If any officer responsible for maintaining law and order is found negligent, he/she should be brought within the ambit of law”.

In the present case, the Supreme Court held that “Mob lynching is disrespect to the rule of law and Constitution values. We may say without any fear of contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day. Such vigilantism, be it for whatever purpose or borne out of whatever cause, has the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the State and altering the constitutional order.”

Guidelines and solution for lynching violence

In Poonawalla case Court asserted that “with regard to numerous incidents of lynching and mob violence which need not be specifically stated since we are going to issue certain directions covering the arena of preventive, remedial and punitive measures.”

Court states that in every district there should be a Nodal Officer a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. A special task force must be appointed to get the intelligence reports about the incidents, victims and perpetrators who spread the hate speeches and fake news. The places where recently mob violence took place must be taken in good care.

The regular meetings must take place among Nodal officers, intelligence units and police personnel to find out probability and tendencies of vigilantism and mob violence in the district and take steps to prohibit instances. The Nodal Officer shall also make efforts to eradicate a hostile environment against any community or caste which is targeted in such incidents. The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States must be informed about the strategies to control the lynching through regular meetings with nodal officer.

The Court opined that “It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of CrPC, which, in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or wreak the havoc of lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise.” The Home Department of the Government of India must take initiative to implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the Rule of Law. There should be seriousness in patrolling so that the anti-social elements involved in such crimes are discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law thus fearing to even think of taking the law into their own hands. The broadcast about the serious consequence of such incident on radio and television including the official websites of the Home Department should take place. The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A of IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having which can cause incidents of mob lynching.

The Court instructed that despite the preventive measures the incident of lynching or mob violence take place, FIR must be lodged without delay and the safety of family members of the victim must be ensured. The investigation regarding mob lynching cases must be done especially by the Nodal Officer. The victim compensation scheme including the interim relief under section 357A of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 must be prepared by the State Governments. Fast track court must be appointed for the cases of lynching and mob violence and the maximum sentence as an example to create fear of law must be awarded to accused. Safeguarding the witnesses of the case must be paramount responsibility of court and police. Day to day report regarding trial must be given to the victims and family. The facilities of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to choose a legal aid advocate must be provided to victims. Court Laid down that wherever it is found that “a police officer or an officer of the district administration has failed to comply with the aforesaid directions the same shall be considered as an act of deliberate negligence for which appropriate action must be taken against him/her and not limited to departmental action under the service rules”. And the people also must be minimum educated so that they know what they are doing and they something moral values.

Conclusion

Various individuals without the slightest hesitation consent to execute somebody shows the bigotry conduct of Indians which could be created because of absence of training and mindfulness. It has been discovered that in the instances of mob lynching, the greater part of the exploited people are male, female and even kids, poor, of a low rank and minority network. This is clear that these are the wrongdoings which are against the underestimated network of the general public. The circumstance winning in India requests an uncommon law on the viciousness of Mob lynching's.

From Human rights, basic rights, to moral rights all the lawful instruments have been discussing the upliftment of the underestimated and prohibited segments of the general public. It is an incongruity that narrow mindedness of the Indians is of such a level, that they think about themselves above law and make ominous conditions against peace. Such circumstances make freeze and threaten condition in the general public which by one way or another limit the development and advancement of the general public.

To take care of such issues, alongside stringent laws there is a need to spread quality instruction and mindfulness among individuals. Safeguarding of life is the most significant appropriate for an individual and the state needs to ensure it. The job of media, common social orders and NGO's must upgrade a positive way. Since we have a vote-based system, not mobocracy in India.