(In)justice

In its judgment in the 2018 Rakbar Khan lynching case, a trial court in Alwar said that “such illegal activities (of mob lynching) in a secular nation like India severely harm the soul of the Indian Constitution”, adding that “if a soft approach is adopted…then there is a strong possibility that it might send a negative message in society.” Unfortunately, the words of the judgement don’t match with the implications it carries. The court handed down the punishment to four convicts under section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 341 (wrongful restraint), rather than Section 302 which deals with charges of murder. Furthermore, even under Section 304, maximum punishment has not been prescribed. But the worst part from the perspective of the victim's kins is that Naval Kishore — a Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) member whom the family alleges to be the main accused — has been acquitted. The verdict has raised questions about the adequacy of the charges brought against the accused. While culpable homicide implies that the act of killing was not intentional, it is essential to examine the circumstances that led to the brutal lynching, and whether stricter charges should have been applied. Such considerations are crucial to ensuring justice and deterring future acts of violence. Sadly, there has been a rise in mob lynching cases across the country, many related to cow vigilantism. Mob lynching strikes at the heart of Indian democracy by eroding the rule of law and the principles of justice. It represents a breakdown in the due process of law, as the mob acts as the judge, jury, and executioner. The impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators not only undermines the authority of the state but also erodes citizens' trust in the judicial system. It creates an atmosphere of fear and vigilantism, where individuals take the law into their own hands, bypassing the legal institutions designed to protect and uphold justice. Such erosion of democratic values threatens the very foundation of a functioning democracy. Furthermore, India's secular fabric, which upholds the principle of religious harmony and coexistence, is deeply endangered by such incidents. Most of these incidents are fuelled by religious or communal tensions, often targeting minorities or marginalized communities. The acts of violence are not only a violation of the fundamental right to life but also an assault on the principles of secularism. Mob lynching fosters an atmosphere of mistrust, hindering social cohesion and undermining the pluralistic nature of Indian society. Moreover, it is no mystery that the case of Rakbar Khan is not a standalone incident. The reports of mob lynching have become more frequent in the past couple of years. Back in 2017, Pehlu Khan was lynched to death by a mob. Justice remained more elusive to his kins than in the case of Rakbar khan. All the six accused in the Pehlu Khan case were acquitted by a Rajasthan court in 2019, following which the kins filed a report in the High Court. In fact, cow vigilantism and mob lynching had been on the rise that particular year. Since the Pehlu Khan case, certain state governments and other agencies have shown eagerness in coming out with a legal solution in this regard, but outcomes have largely been limited. The conviction rate in mob lynching cases stood at a meagre 16 per cent in 2020; and there are hardly any signs of improvement even now. Several social commentators blame it on a lack of political will, with some even alleging covert political complicity. That may be, however, just one part of the problem. Mob lynching and legal proceedings around it are very complex and even vague. In the first place, the nature of the mob itself is a difficult thing to define. The modus operandi of its shaping is almost undecipherable. For legal-judicial authorities, the act of differentiating between innocents and guilty among the crowd remains a tricky task. Before convicting any person under Section 149, the prosecution has the onus of proving that the accused were a part of the unlawful assembly at the time of the incident. For an individual to be framed under Section 149 of the IPC, the proof of active participation and common object is mandatory — enhancing the charges of acquittal manifold. The intensity acquired by mob lynching in recent years has created an urge for a streamlined and comprehensive legislation. Collective action by the governments, civil society organisations, and citizens can help foster an inclusive society that values diversity, promotes empathy, and respects the rule of law. But for that to happen, a well-defined and uniform legislation is a non-negotiable requisite.