BACKGROUND:

The Supreme Court directed states to respond to a PIL by the National Federation of Indian Women regarding mob lynching incidents. Most states have not responded, prompting the court to grant six weeks for detailed affidavits.

Key Points:

• Only MP and Haryana responded to the PIL.
• Advocate Nizam Pasha argued that incidents were often labeled as accidents or fights, ignoring SC guidelines on prevention of lynching.
• Contradictions in media and police reports were highlighted.
• Haryana’s affidavit also portrayed incidents as normal accidents.
• Pasha emphasized non-compliance with guidelines from the Tehseen Poonawalla case.
• The court granted six weeks for states to respond on specific incidents mentioned in the petition.

Impact:

This case could lead to increased accountability and action against mob lynching incidents if states comply with SC guidelines.

Legal Analysis:

The case highlights the challenge of defining and addressing mob lynching, emphasizing the need for states to follow SC guidelines to prevent such incidents.

CUNCLUSION:

The court’s decision to grant six weeks for responses indicates a proactive approach to addressing mob lynching, potentially leading to stricter enforcement of guidelines and increased awareness.

SOURCE–THE INDIAN EXPRESS

Read Also-SUPREME COURT REJECTS BAIL FOR AAP MLA AMANATULLAH KHAN IN MONEY LAUNDERING PROBE