Answer:

Introduction:

In the recent past, India has seen a surge in incidents of lynching and mob violence based on rumors, cultural beliefs, and hate crimes. The Supreme Court of India, in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India case, took cognizance of the issue and made vital observations.

Body:

Observations on Lynching and Mob Violence:

• The Court noted with concern that lynching and mob violence are creeping threats that can eat away the vital organs of our polity.
• Such incidents cannot become the order of the day. 
• They highlighted the importance of “pluralism” and “tolerance” as cardinal values of our nation’s culture.
• The Court expressed distress that the incidents of lynching and mob violence are mainly fueled by intolerance, misinformation, and other malicious factors.

Obligations of the Union and State Governments:

• Preventive Measures: 
  • The states should designate a senior police officer in each district to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. 
  • This officer would be responsible for ensuring that vigilante groups and mobs are kept under check.
• Responsive Measures: 
  • On receiving any information about mob violence and lynching, the officer should take measures to prevent it. 
  • This includes spreading awareness about the illegality of such acts and the consequences for those who participate in them.
• Accountability: 
  • It is the duty of the central and state governments to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. 
  • This duty includes taking stringent action against those who break the law, irrespective of the nature of their motivations.
• Rehabilitation and Compensation: 
  • The state governments need to provide compensation to the victims and their families in incidents of lynching and mob violence.
  • Rehabilitation is essential to ensure that the victims or their families are not left destitute.
• Prompt Investigation and Trial: 
  • Cases of lynching and mob violence should be specifically tried in fast-track courts designated in each district. 
  • This approach ensures speedy trials and acts as a deterrent for potential perpetrators.
• Technological Solutions: 
  • The governments were also directed to use modern technological tools, especially the internet and social media, to curb and dispel rumours that might lead to such incidents. 
  • This involves proactive monitoring and counteracting misinformation campaigns.

Constitutional Obligations:

• The Supreme Court highlighted that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. 
• This right is infringed when incidents of lynching and mob violence occur. 
• The state has an obligation to uphold this fundamental right.
• The Court also invoked the doctrine of “protective discrimination” under Articles 14 and 15, emphasizing the state’s role in ensuring that no citizen, especially those from vulnerable sections, faces discrimination or violence.

Conclusion: 

In a democracy like India, the rule of law is supreme, and every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The observations of the Supreme Court in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India case are a stern reminder of the obligations of the state and society to uphold these values. Lynching and mob violence, driven by prejudice, ignorance, or misinformation, have no place in our society, and it is the duty of every stakeholder to ensure that such incidents are curbed.