The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain a contempt petition alleging that States have not complied with directions issued in its 2018 judgment in Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India, which prescribed measures to curb mob lynching and hate crimes.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the plea filed by Samastha Kerala Jamiat-ul-Ulema.
Court Says Contempt Needs A Concrete Grievance
The Court said the 2018 directions operate at a general level. It added that courts usually invoke contempt jurisdiction when a concrete, individual grievance arises from specific facts.
The Bench noted that the petition did not point to any specific instance where a person’s rights suffered due to alleged non-compliance. On this reasoning, the Court dismissed the petition. However, it gave liberty to the petitioners to pursue remedies available under law.
CJI On Practical Limits Of Broad Directions
During the hearing, the CJI cautioned that courts must remain careful while issuing directions that may become difficult to administer. He said courts often state directions as general principles. They do so with the expectation that authorities will stay mindful of them.
What Tehseen Poonawala Directed In 2018
In Tehseen Poonawala v. Union of India, the Supreme Court asked Parliament to consider whether India needs a dedicated law on mob lynching.
The judgment also listed preventive measures to address mob lynching and hate crimes. It directed State governments to set up a special task force. The task force was meant to gather intelligence on persons involved in mob lynching. It also had to track those who spread hate speech, provocative statements, and fake news.
Reference To Shaheen Abdullah Compliance Matter
The Court also referred to a related case, Shaheen Abdullah v. Union of India & Ors. In that matter, it had earlier sought compliance updates on the Tehseen Poonawala guidelines from 28 State Governments. The Court did so to curb hate speech effectively and in practical terms.
