Article 2: Inglorious retreat
Why in news: The Supreme Court recently declined to enforce its 2018 anti-lynching guidelines, raising concerns about judicial oversight, state accountability, and rising incidents of cow vigilantism.
Key Details
- The Supreme Court of India has declined to actively enforce its 2018 anti-lynching guidelines, calling the general directions “unmanageable.”
- The Court prefers a case-by-case approach, rather than monitoring States for systemic compliance.
- Petitioners sought contempt action against States for failing to prevent and punish cow vigilantism.
- Despite the 2018 ruling declaring lynching must be “curbed and crippled,” implementation by several States has been weak or absent.
- The development raises serious concerns about judicial retreat, state accountability, and the weakening of rule of law protections.
Supreme Court’s Shift on 2018 Guidelines
- The Supreme Court of India has declined to actively enforce its 2018 guidelines aimed at preventing mob violence in the name of cow protection.
- On February 23, Chief Justice Justice Surya Kant termed the earlier “general directions” as “unmanageable.”
- The Court favoured handling incidents case-by-case, rather than monitoring broader compliance.
- Petitioners had sought contempt proceedings against States for failing to implement preventive and punitive measures.
Background: The 2018 Judgment
- In 2018, a Bench led by then CJI Justice Dipak Mishra condemned cow vigilantism and mob lynching.
- The Court declared lynching must be “curbed and crippled.”
- It emphasized the State’s “sacrosanct duty” to protect citizens.
- The guidelines envisioned the Court acting as a constitutional watchdog.
Judicial Retreat Over Time
- Over the years, the Court’s stance reflects a gradual withdrawal from active oversight.
- The recent position signals what appears to be a final retreat from enforcing systemic compliance.
- This aligns with concerns about judicial diffidence amid majoritarian politics.
Failure of Law Enforcement Mechanisms
- Ideally, policing should function independently under the rule of law, without Court monitoring.
- The need for Supreme Court intervention itself highlighted institutional failure.
- Since 2018, incidents of cow vigilantism have reportedly increased.
- In some regions, police authorities have been accused of overlooking or indirectly enabling mob actions.
State Actions and Vigilante Empowerment
- Some States have reportedly granted quasi-policing powers or legal backing to cow vigilante groups.
- The Court earlier declined to hear a direct challenge to such empowerment, advising petitioners to approach High Courts individually.
- Several States have allegedly failed to implement the 2018 directives.
Implications for Rule of Law
- Vigilante violence continues, sometimes with alleged police inaction.
- The Court’s reluctance to enforce its own directives raises concerns about institutional accountability.
- A sustained disengagement could weaken public confidence in the constitutional promise of rule of law and equal protection.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to enforce its 2018 anti-lynching guidelines signals a significant institutional shift. While policing is primarily a State responsibility, continued inaction amid rising vigilantism risks eroding constitutional guarantees of equality and protection. Upholding the rule of law requires consistent judicial oversight, firm state accountability, and unwavering commitment to citizens’ fundamental rights.