The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Central and State governments’ responses to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a uniform and fair compensation policy for victims of mob lynching across the country.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna issued a notice to Centre and State governments on the petition filed by the Indian Muslims for Progress and Reforms, represented by counsel Rizwan Ahmad.
The petitioner- the Indian Muslims for Progress and Reforms submitted that state governments’ present approach towards ex-gratia compensation for victims of hate crimes and mob lynching is ‘whimsical, discriminatory, and arbitrary,’ ‘meagre’ and has ‘glaring discrepancies’.
“The approach of State Government’s in most cases depend on extraneous factors such as media coverage, political imperatives, and the victim’s religious identity. Such action by the governments is not only a violation of equality before the law (Article 14), but also a violation of Article 15 which mandates non-discrimination against any citizen,” the plea stated.
It was argued that such incidents had a substantial impact on the rule of law, citing recent instances of heinous crimes against minorities.
“In the recent past, self-proclaimed and self-styled vigilantes have brazenly become law unto themselves and have targeted citizens belonging to the minority community. Targeted violence based on suspicion and, at times, misinformation that the victims were involved in illegal cattle trade,” the petitioner submitted.
It was highlighted that the trauma produced by hate crimes and mob lynchings can last a lifetime.
“It is the government’s responsibility to assist families afflicted by such tragedies. State governments’ attitude and discrimination in granting ex gratia compensation to victims of hate crime/lynching are further aggravating the victims’ suffering.”
The petitioner requested that existing compensation programmes framed in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tehseen Poonawalla be appropriately modified in this regard.
The Supreme Court gave the respondents six weeks’ time to file their responses.
