‘Don’t Go By Religion’, SC Rebukes Lawyers For Selective Approach, Asks States To Reply

The Supreme Court on Tuesday while hearing a PIL filed against rising cases of mob lynching and inaction by state governments reprimanded lawyers for selective approach and digressing from the issue of mob-lynching to mob-lynching of into Hindus and Muslim in the court. The top court had to ask the lawyers to maintain restraint and discipline in the court and to not go by religion or caste but to focus on the issue. This exchange occurred when while hearing the petitioner, the bench of Supreme Court asked if Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal’s case was mentioned in the petition. 

A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta asked Advocate Nizam Pasha if the murder of Udaipur-based tailor Kanhaiya Lal was included in the cases in the petition. It may be recalled that Kanhaiya was killed in 2022 for allegedly sharing a social media post of former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma regarding Prophet Mohammad. 

Advocate Pasha appearing for petitioners informed the top court that Kanhaiya Lal’s case was not included in the present petition. However, he assured the court that he was just highlighting certain cases and he will mention Kanhaiya’s case in the petition.

To this, the bench replied that, “You have to ensure that it is not selective at all if all States are there”

On this, the Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave appearing for the Gujarat government interjected and told the court that only cases of Muslims being lynched were being highlighted.

The court then remarked that the lawyers should avoid making such statements and warned them against such submissions. 

The bench clarified that the counsels should not make submissions based on what the court says. 

Justice Sandeep Mehta said the matter should not be looked at as per caste and religion but as a whole. 

SC Seeks Reply From State Governments In PIL Against Mob-Lynching 

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave another six weeks time to the state governments to file their replies to the public interest litigation (PIL) pertaining to the increase in the mob lynching cases. The court noted that many states did not file detailed affidavits specifying the steps taken by them in respect the mob-lynching incidents as directed by the court previously.

The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) moved the top court raising concerns about a rise in incidents of mob violence against minorities. The PIL also sought immediate interim compensation for the families of victims of mob lynching.

Earlier, the top court had issued notice to state governments in the case. However, only Haryana and Madhya Pradesh have filed a detailed affidavit so far.

The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Aravind Kumar, and Sandeep Mehta presided over the case and directed all the states to file their replies within six weeks.

Advocate Nizam Pasha while replying to MP and Haryana’s affidavits contended that most incidents of mob lynching were given the colour of the normal accident or fight to override the guidelines framed by the apex court in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment.

In Tehseen Poonawalla’s case, the top court had issued detailed guidelines for the Centre and state governments to prevent of lynching and mob violence.

The case will be listed after six weeks.