The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that it cannot micromanage every incident happening in the country while rejecting a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to all states against mob lynching and cow vigilantism, underscoring that laws exist for the aggrieved to pursue legal remedies.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran stated that it had already issued necessary directions in the 2018 case of Tehseen S Poonawalla vs Union of India, affirming that these directives remain binding on all authorities under Article 141 of the Constitution.
The court observed that circumstances vary across states, making it impractical for it to oversee such matters from Delhi, and stressed that non-compliance with its earlier directives should be addressed through legal channels.
It further stated that monitoring such incidents across different states would be infeasible, advising affected individuals to approach the relevant authorities instead of seeking judicial oversight on a broad scale.
The plea had also sought a uniform minimum compensation for victims of mob violence, arguing that such a provision was necessary to ensure justice. However, the bench held that compensation should be determined on a case-by-case basis, asserting that a fixed directive would remove the discretion required for fair assessment. The court noted that issuing an omnibus order for compensation would not necessarily serve the best interests of victims.
The petitioner’s counsel contended that various states had issued notifications granting private individuals powers related to cow protection, which, he argued, had led to the rise of mob violence. He further claimed that the state machinery was complicit in such incidents, often registering cases against victims instead of protecting them.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, maintained that such notifications could be legally challenged before respective high courts. Acknowledging this, the bench clarified that it could not adjudicate on the validity of state laws in a single instance, suggesting that affected parties should approach jurisdictional high courts to contest the constitutionality of such regulations.