Mob violence turns on the judiciary
text_fields
In little more than a decade, mob lynchings have spread across the country like an epidemic of crime. Communal mobs are beating and hurling people to their deaths in the streets, identifying their religion from their clothing and guessing their nationality from their facial features. From IT engineer Muhsin Shaikh, who was murdered in Pune, to Hafiz Junaid, who was killed on a train while returning home to Khandawali in Haryana after buying Eid clothes in Delhi, to Ramnarayan Bhaghel from Chhattisgarh, who was beaten to death by communalists in Walayar, Palakkad, on suspicion of being Bangladeshi, the number of victims in such cases has run into the hundreds. Yet only a handful of perpetrators have been convicted. When lynchings have been carried out over allegations of beef possession, cattle smuggling or cattle slaughter, FIRs and sections of the mainstream media have often appeared to defend the accused. More than the confidence that comes from having a government they regard as their own in power, it is the indifference and partisanship of law enforcement agencies and the justice system that embolden Hindutva hate groups to carry out mob violence.
Not only is it exceedingly rare for those accused in such cases to be punished, but contemporary India has also witnessed perpetrators—along with those who incited them through hate speeches—continuing to roam freely and glorify similar acts, while the families of the victims are left to grieve without justice.
It must be remembered that none of this is happening because of the absence of laws or legal safeguards. The Supreme Court has laid down detailed guidelines to deal with lynching, including the establishment of fast-track courts, adequate compensation for victims and their families by state governments, the appointment of senior police officers as nodal officers in every district to prevent such violence, intensified patrolling in vulnerable areas, and strict action against those spreading hate speech and fake news. However, these directions are often ignored.
There have been several instances in which the prosecution allegedly colluded with the accused to shield them. However, in one lynching case in Madhya Pradesh, the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment after investigators collected credible evidence and recorded witness statements. On the 12th of last month, an Additional District and Sessions Judge in Narmadapuram sentenced 14 people to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of truck driver Naseer Ahmed in Barakhad village in August 2022. He had been accused of smuggling cattle from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra. At the time, the verdict was reported only in a few local newspapers. Today, however, it has gained national and international attention. The reason is that supporters of the convicts have launched death threats and defamatory campaigns against the judge. The hate group that claims to identify religion from clothing and appearance has now identified religion from the name of the judge, Tabassum Khan. Protests demanding the release of the convicts have been organised, effigies of the judge have been burnt, and hate videos calling for the judge who sentenced the so-called 'cow protectors' to be killed are spreading across social media. Some have even threatened nationwide bloodshed if the sentence is not overturned. Following the controversy, the Madhya Pradesh Police registered a case and provided security to the judge. Supreme Court lawyers, civil rights activists and political leaders have come forward in solidarity with the judge. However, no one at the highest levels of government has spoken out. Nor have they instructed their supporters to stop.
The conduct of these mobs is a natural consequence of the government's earlier decision to transfer Justice Muralidhar after he ordered action against hate speech in Delhi, and of its decision to replace Justice Atul Sreedharan in Madhya Pradesh.
That a judge should receive death threats for discharging official duties is a stark reflection of the erosion of the rule of law in the country. Everyone knows that the court assessed the gravity of the offence committed by the accused—not their religion—and that its verdict was grounded in law. The audacity of hate groups in attempting to intimidate even the judiciary is likely to exert pressure on investigating officers and witnesses in similar cases. Saffron groups are now carrying the campaign of mob intimidation they have waged on the streets and in cyberspace into the judiciary, moving steadily towards their objective.