Supreme Court’s Recent Stance on Cow Vigilantism Guidelines Raises Concerns Over Rule of Law
An editorial criticizes the Supreme Court's perceived retreat from its 2018 guidelines intended to curb mob violence and cow vigilantism. Chief Justice Surya Kant recently observed that the 2018 'general directions' were 'unmanageable', suggesting petitioners approach High Courts instead. The article argues that since 2018, vigilantism has grown, often with state encouragement or legal sanctity. The 2018 judgment (Dipak Misra bench) had emphasized the state's 'sacrosanct duty' to protect citizens from lynching. The current judicial diffidence is seen as a blow to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights against majoritarian violence.
Key Points
- The 2018 Supreme Court judgment provided specific preventive, punitive, and remedial measures against mob lynching.
- Current judicial observations suggest a shift toward handling cases on individual merits rather than systemic monitoring.
- Vigilante groups are allegedly being accorded quasi-policing powers in violation of court guidelines.
- The editorial highlights a tension between judicial directives and their executive implementation at the state level.
Exam Facts
- 2018 Supreme Court judgment on cow vigilantism (Dipak Misra bench).
- Chief Justice of India: Justice Surya Kant.
- The 2018 judgment emphasized the 'sacrosanct duty' of the state to protect citizens.
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.