Why be selective in citing mob lynching incidents, SC asks NGO petitioner

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned NGO National Federation of Indian Women raising the issue of mob lynchings as to why it was selective in citing the instances and did not include the slitting of throat of a tailor in Rajasthan.

"Let us not go by religion or caste," a bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta said.

The bench asked advocate Mohd Nizamuddin Pasha, appearing for the petitioner as what about the inclusion of incident connected with Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Rajasthan, who was murdered in 2022 for allegedly sharing a social media post of suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma regarding Prophet Mohammad.

The counsel said that it was not included in the petition.

The bench said that the petitioner should ensure that the plea is not selective at all, if the state government has been impleaded in the matter.

Senior advocate Archana Dave Pathak, representing the Rajasthan government, said the petition should include everybody but was confined to one religion only.

On this, Pasha said that in his submissions he has not mentioned any religion.

"If the other counsel wants to bring some other incident, they are welcome to place additional material before the court,” he said.

The bench observed, “Look at the larger cause”.

Pasha submitted that his client has a long history of public interest litigation before this court.

Dave asked the court to examine a paragraph from the petition.

“I do not know why the state has this problem, if there is a particular incident and if there is a particular social issue of targeting a particular community. There is no reason why it should not be brought to the court. I have not mentioned any religion in my submission,” Pasha said.

Dave question the contention in the petition which referred to "the alarming rise of lynching and mob violence against the Muslim community”.

Pasha said that is a statement of fact and it is a statistical fact in this country and there is a rise in incidents against a particular community, and it is a reality we are dealing with.

The bench told Dave to file her response.

The court also sought to know if the petitioner has noticed some incidents regarding persons belonging to a particular community, is there any worth taking it to a certain extent?

Dave said if it is a general PIL then it should not be restricted to a particular community.

“They are bringing to court’s notice the incidents which are in their knowledge. Tell us which are the incidents where Hindu people have been lynched,” the bench told the counsel.

The bench asked lawyers to be careful in their submissions and said it has to be about the overall issue which is prevailing.

In July last year, the apex court had sought response from the central government and the police of six states.

The plea sought court's urgent intervention in view of the "alarming rise and shocking upsurge in cases of lynching and mob violence against Muslims" despite clear guidelines and directions by the apex court in Tehseen S Poonawalla judgement (2018).