GUWAHATI, Oct 7: As many as 35 cases of lynching by mobs have been reported in a span of less than six years from 2013 to September 2018 in Assam.
In its judgment on the Tehseen S Poonawalla versus Union of India and others case delivered in July this year, the Supreme Court of India has said in clear terms that “the horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the citizens from recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become ‘the new normal’.” However, killing by lynch mob, it seems, is becoming a new norm in Assam. As many as 35 cases of lynching by mobs in less than six years, at any rate, is too heavy a toll. And there has been a steep rise in the number of such cases in 2018. Till the middle of September this year, there were as many as 16 mob lynching cases in the State, against only four in 2017, five in 2016, six in 2015, three in 2014 and one in 2013.
Lynch mobs have taken their heaviest toll in the past less than six years at Hojai. As many as ten mob lynching cases have reported at Hojai during the period taken up as a case study. The numbers of such cases in other places in the State during the period, according to statistics obtained from the police, are – one each in Golaghat, Chirang and Nagaon; two each in Cachar and Goalpara; three each in Karbi Anglong, Nalbari and Dima Hasao; four in Baksa and five in Morigaon.
What has gone awry in policing in the State that such a large number mob lynching cases have been reported in less than six years? According to the preventive measures prescribed by the apex court in the above mentioned writ petition, every State, let alone Assam, should have a special task force (STF) with a nodal officer not below the rank of a superintendent of police as its head. The nodal officer should be assisted by a DSP rank officer. The STF is supposed to procure intelligence reports about people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news. State governments should also identify their districts, sub-divisions or villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past. The apex court has also prescribed time-to-time review of situations by Home Departments and State DGPs. The apex court has also said that the Central and the state governments should take steps to curb and stop dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other materials on social media platforms which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind. The court expects the police to deal with such dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind. Has not the recent lynching of two youths in Dima Hasao been a failure on the part of the police in keeping tabs on explosive messages in the social media?
The apex court, in the punitive measures it has prescribed, has said that if a police officer or an officer of the district administration fails to comply with the directive in order to prevent/investigate/facilitate expeditious trial of any crime of mob violence and lynching action must be taken against him/her apart from departmental action under the service rule.
Is Dispur agile enough to comply with all such directives?