Supreme Court

Jaising was arguing on behalf of social activist Tushar Gandhi and narrated the recent lynching incidents in Maharashtra and the National Capital Region (NCR).

“Despite your order to the States to appoint nodal officers to prevent such incidents, recently there was a lynching and death just 60 km away from Delhi,” she submitted.

Her reference is to the killing by a mob of an alleged cattle smuggler in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh. Jaising said the incidents went “beyond the description of law and order”. “There is a pattern and a motive behind them. For instance, all these instances happen on highways. This court had called for patrolling of the highways,” she submitted.

The CJI asked Jaising to not confine her arguments to any pattern or motive. “All these incidents are instances of mob violence,” he responded.

The CJI wondered whether the Centre could frame a scheme under Article 256 to give directions to the states to prevent/control such incidents, to which Narasimha disagreed. “The question here is whether states can implement your [court] directions,” the ASG said.

Jaising called upon the Union to back up its advisories to the states with action. “The Union feels responsible... we don’t need to be advised by you,” the ASG said.

“There is a difference between ‘feeling’ and ‘action,” Jaising replied, demanding the compensation be determined on the fact that the victims are being targeted for their religion and caste. “Each State shall be held responsible. Law and order is the State’s responsibility,” the CJI observed orally, assuring Jaising that her contempt petition will be kept alive.

This means that the court will continue monitoring the implementation of its judgment.