New Delhi, Feb 11: The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to DGPs of states to take immediate action in lynching and mob violence cases in accordance with the directions of the apex court and added that the directions in the Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India case were binding on all authorities across India.

A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.Vinod Chandran opined that sitting in the national Capital, it cannot monitor incidents in different areas of different states across the country.

“Sitting in Delhi, we cannot monitor incidents in different areas of the country and in our view such micromanagement would not be feasible,” said the Justice Gavai-led Bench.

It added that the directions laid down by the top court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, are binding on all authorities across the country under Article 141 of the Constitution.

In its 2018 judgment in the Poonawalla case, the Supreme Court had directed designation of nodal officer in each district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching.

“The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned states shall take regular review meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police Intelligence heads,” it had ordered.

In its order, the Justice Gavai-led Bench stated that an aggrieved person can always seek remedy in accordance with the law, clarifying that the apex court cannot lay down any uniform criteria for the grant of compensation to the victims of mob lynching incidents since the quantum of compensation ought to be decided on a case to case basis.

Further, the apex court refused to examine the validity of cow protection laws introduced in several states, suggesting the litigants to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

“It will be appropriate that persons who are aggrieved approach jurisdictional High Courts to challenge the vires of the legislations/notifications,” the SC said.

During the course of hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, submitted that mob lynching is a distinct offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and if there is any violation, the law will take its own course.

In an earlier hearing, the top court had pulled up the state governments of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Bihar for not filing their counter-affidavits.

“We clarify that in the event counter affidavits are not filed by the above-mentioned states, the Chief Secretaries of the said states shall remain personally present in the court on the next date of hearing to show cause as to why an action should not be taken against them for non-compliance of the orders of the court,” it had said in an order passed on November 5, 2024.

Earlier in April last year, the apex court had granted six weeks to various state governments to file their reply detailing the action taken in cases of lynchings and mob violence.

“It was expected of the state governments to at least respond and give details as to what action has been taken in respect of the said instances (of lynchings and mob violence). We, therefore, grant six weeks’ time to all the state governments – who have not yet filed their affidavits – to file their counter-reply and give an explanation as to what action has been taken by the states in respect of incidents mentioned in the writ petition or interlocutory applications,” the SC had said.

In July 2023, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha, and Maharashtra governments. Later, all state governments were added as parties in the PIL on an application moved by Islamic clerics’ organisation Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind. The plea prayed for a minimum uniform compensation to be determined by the court that should be granted to the victims or their families in addition to the amount determined by the authorities.

“In most cases, minimal action of merely registering FIRs is the only thing that is done by the authorities which seems to be more of a formality than any genuine initiation of the criminal machinery,” the plea said.