NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked an NGO National Federation of Indian Women as to why it was selective in raising issue of mob lynchings and preferred not to mention the horrific incident of slitting of throat of a tailor in Rajasthan recorded by the culprits themselves on camera.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta said one should not go by caste or religion.
As advocate Mohd Nizam Pasha, appearing for the petitioner, argued the matter, the bench asked him 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 a particular state government has been impleaded in the matter.
Senior advocate Archana Dave Pathak, representing a state government, said the petition should include everybody but was confined to one religion only.
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 then the court to look at 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 in the matter.
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 courts 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 also asked lawyers to be careful in their submissions and said it has to be about the overall issue which is prevailing.
In July, 2023, the court had sought response from the central government and the police of six states to the allegations made in the PIL.
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).
The court granted six more weeks to the States to file their response and fixed the matter for hearing after summer vacations.
