The U.S. experience shows that anti-lynching laws are not enough — this must be a political battle

Highlights

Dismayed by the increasing number of cases of lynching across the country, the Supreme Court observed last month that “it is the responsibility of the States to prevent untoward incidents and to prevent crime.”

Towards this goal, in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (July 17, 2018), the court directed that certain guidelines be implemented.

Preventive guidelines

• The preventive guidelines require every State to designate a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as the Nodal Officer in each district.
• This officer will constitute a special task force to collect intelligence on persons likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speech, provocative statements and fake news.
•  Additionally, both the Central and State governments have been directed to broadcast public notifications on radio, television and other media platforms informing the public of the consequences of taking the law into their hands.

Remedial measures

• Amongst the remedial measures, the Supreme Court has directed that in case of an incident of lynching or mob violence, the jurisdictional police station shall immediately lodge a first information report (FIR).
• The Station House Officer, in whose police station such an FIR is registered, shall intimate the Nodal Officer whose duty it will be to ensure that the victim’s family members are not further harassed.
• Nodal Officers have been made duty-bound to ensure that investigation and prosecution of such cases is strictly carried out, the charge sheet filed within the prescribed time period, and the trial concluded through fast-track courts within six months.
• The court has also directed that, upon conviction, the maximum sentences provided for various offences be awarded, and this should hopefully act as a deterrent.

US scenario

• In the case of the U.S., it took almost a hundred years between the Civil War (1861-1865) and the Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968) for the repugnant practice of mob violence to be wiped out.
• Pertinently though, in the American context, between 1882 and 1968, nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were moved in the U.S. Congress, and seven Presidents, between 1890 and 1952, petitioned Congress to pass a federal law.
• However, no bill was approved by the Senate, due to the opposition by the conservative South. Eventually, in 2005, the U.S. Senate formally apologised for not passing an anti-lynching law when it was most needed.

As a nation, India cannot wait that long. The executive must immediately implement the directions of the Supreme Court. This agenda cannot be fought by court directives, legislation and police procedures alone. It must be fought politically.

Source: The Hindu