Directions in hate crime ruling may be unmanageable: CJI
CJI says general directions in hate crime ruling are unmanageable.
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant stated that the "general directions" issued by the Supreme Court in its 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment to prevent and prosecute cow vigilantism and mobocracy are "unmanageable." The court refused to entertain contempt petitions alleging that state governments and authorities had not complied with the 2018 judgment. CJI Kant advocated for an individualistic approach, addressing each crime based on its specific facts and merits, and acting immediately on any violation of a person's rights or abuse of law. The eight-year-old verdict had criticized lynchings and communally colored mob violence since 2014, describing them as "creeping" threats.
CJI Kant emphasized the difficulty in implementing broad directives across diverse situations. He suggested that focusing on the unique circumstances of each case would be more effective in addressing such crimes. The court's stance reflects a preference for targeted interventions rather than sweeping measures that may prove impractical or ineffective.
This development is relevant to India's legal and constitutional framework, particularly concerning the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law. It is pertinent for UPSC exams, specifically under Polity & Governance (GS Paper II), as it deals with judicial pronouncements, enforcement of rights, and issues related to mob violence and vigilantism.
Key Facts
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant called the Supreme Court's 2018 directions on cow vigilantism and mobocracy "unmanageable."
The court refused to entertain contempt petitions regarding non-compliance with the 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment.
The CJI advocated for an individualistic approach to addressing hate crimes.
The 2018 judgment was a response to a rise in lynchings and communally colored mob violence since 2014.
UPSC Exam Angles
GS Paper II (Polity & Governance): Judicial pronouncements, enforcement of rights, issues related to mob violence and vigilantism.
Connects to the syllabus areas of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, Judiciary, and Federalism.
Potential question types: Analytical questions on the role of the judiciary in protecting fundamental rights, the challenges of implementing court directives, and the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint.
In Simple Words
The Supreme Court made some general rules in 2018 to stop mob violence, especially related to cow protection. Now, the Chief Justice says those rules are too broad to handle. He thinks it's better to look at each crime separately and decide what to do based on the specific details.
India Angle
In India, mob violence and vigilantism can affect anyone, especially those from minority communities. If the rules to prevent these crimes are too general, it might be hard to protect people effectively.
For Instance
Imagine your apartment complex has a rule about noise levels. If the rule is too vague, like "keep noise down," it's hard to enforce. But if it specifies decibel levels and quiet hours, it's easier to manage noise complaints.
This matters because it affects how safe people feel and how effectively the government can protect them from violence. If the rules aren't clear or manageable, justice can be delayed or denied.
Justice isn't one-size-fits-all; it needs to be tailored to each case.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stated that the "general directions" issued by the Supreme Court in a 2018 judgment to prevent and prosecute cow vigilantism and mobocracy are "unmanageable". The court refused to entertain contempt petitions that State governments and authorities had not been acting in compliance with the 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment.
The CJI observed in favor of an individualistic approach, addressing each crime based on its specific facts and merits, and acting immediately on any violation of a person's rights or abuse of law. The eight-year-old verdict had criticized lynchings and communally colored mob violence since 2014, describing them as "creeping" threats.
Expert Analysis
The Supreme Court's observation regarding the "unmanageable" nature of its 2018 directions in the Tehseen Poonawalla case highlights the complexities of addressing mob violence and vigilantism through broad judicial mandates. The core issue revolves around the implementation of the Rule of Law, which ensures that laws are applied fairly and consistently to all individuals. The CJI's emphasis on an "individualistic approach" underscores the need to tailor legal responses to the specific facts of each case, rather than relying on generalized directives that may prove impractical.
Another key concept is Judicial Review, the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. The 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment itself was an exercise of judicial review, aimed at curbing mob violence and ensuring accountability. However, the current reluctance to entertain contempt petitions suggests a reassessment of the court's role in directly enforcing its directives, particularly when faced with implementation challenges at the state level.
The concept of Federalism also plays a crucial role. The implementation of law and order is primarily the responsibility of state governments. The Supreme Court's directives in the Tehseen Poonawalla case sought to guide state action, but the CJI's recent remarks acknowledge the limitations of such interventions in a federal structure where states have significant autonomy in matters of law enforcement. The court's decision not to entertain contempt petitions further underscores the balance between judicial oversight and state autonomy.
Finally, the issue touches upon Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 14 (Equality before Law) of the Indian Constitution. Mob violence and vigilantism directly violate these rights, and the judiciary has a constitutional duty to protect them. The challenge lies in finding effective mechanisms to prevent such violations while respecting the principles of federalism and the practical constraints of law enforcement.
For UPSC aspirants, this news highlights the importance of understanding the interplay between judicial pronouncements, fundamental rights, federalism, and the rule of law. Questions in both Prelims and Mains can be framed around the effectiveness of judicial interventions in addressing social issues, the balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint, and the challenges of implementing court directives in a diverse and decentralized polity.
More Information
Background
Latest Developments
In recent years, there have been ongoing debates about the effectiveness of various measures to curb mob violence and hate crimes. Several state governments have enacted laws to address these issues, but their implementation has been uneven.
The central government has also taken steps to address hate speech and misinformation online, but these efforts have faced criticism for their potential impact on freedom of expression. The issue of mob violence and vigilantism remains a significant challenge for law enforcement agencies and policymakers.
Looking ahead, there is a need for a more comprehensive and coordinated approach to address these issues, involving not only law enforcement agencies but also civil society organizations, community leaders, and the media. The focus should be on promoting tolerance, understanding, and respect for diversity, as well as ensuring accountability for those who engage in violence and hate speech.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is the CJI calling the Supreme Court's earlier directions 'unmanageable' now, after several years?
The CJI's statement likely stems from the practical difficulties encountered in implementing the 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment across diverse situations. The court may feel that broad, general directions are not effectively addressing the complexities of individual cases of mob violence and hate crimes, necessitating a more tailored, case-by-case approach.
2. How does this relate to the UPSC syllabus, and which GS paper is most relevant?
This news primarily relates to GS Paper II (Polity & Governance), specifically concerning the Rule of Law, Judicial Review, and Federalism. A question could arise concerning the balance between judicial activism and the separation of powers, or the challenges in implementing Supreme Court directives at the state level.
Exam Tip
When discussing this in Mains, remember to balance the need for judicial intervention with the importance of respecting the legislative and executive domains. Critically analyze, don't just praise or condemn.
3. What is the likely Prelims question related to this news, and what would be a common trap?
A likely Prelims question could focus on the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment: 'The Tehseen Poonawalla judgment of 2018 is related to: a) Environmental protection, b) Electoral reforms, c) Prevention of mob violence and vigilantism, d) Protection of tribal rights.' The trap would be to confuse it with other landmark judgments related to fundamental rights or social justice.
Exam Tip
Remember the key year (2018) and the core issue (mob violence) to avoid confusion with other cases.
4. The article mentions 'individualistic approach'. What does this mean in the context of hate crime prosecution?
An 'individualistic approach' means that each incident of hate crime or mob violence should be investigated and prosecuted based on its specific facts, evidence, and circumstances, rather than applying a blanket set of guidelines. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of the crime and potentially more effective justice.
5. What are the potential drawbacks of moving away from the general directions outlined in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment?
Moving away from general directions could lead to: * Inconsistent application of the law across different states and districts. * Potential for bias or discrimination in investigations and prosecutions. * Difficulty in addressing systemic issues that contribute to mob violence and hate crimes. * Slower response times if authorities need to determine the approach on a case-by-case basis.
- •Inconsistent application of the law across different states and districts.
- •Potential for bias or discrimination in investigations and prosecutions.
- •Difficulty in addressing systemic issues that contribute to mob violence and hate crimes.
- •Slower response times if authorities need to determine the approach on a case-by-case basis.
6. How does this development fit into the larger debate about judicial overreach vs. judicial accountability in India?
This situation highlights the ongoing tension between judicial activism (where the court proactively intervenes to protect rights) and the practical limitations of implementing broad judicial directives. While the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment aimed to address a critical issue, the CJI's comments suggest a need for greater judicial restraint and a recognition of the executive's role in maintaining law and order. It also raises questions about the judiciary's ability to effectively monitor and enforce its own directives.
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, 2018: 1. It was primarily concerned with addressing incidents of mob violence and vigilantism, particularly those related to cow protection. 2. The judgment directed state governments to designate a senior police officer in each district to prevent mob violence. 3. The Supreme Court has recently expressed satisfaction with the implementation of the judgment by all state governments. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is CORRECT: The Tehseen Poonawalla judgment was indeed concerned with addressing mob violence and vigilantism, especially those related to cow protection. Statement 2 is CORRECT: The judgment did direct state governments to designate a senior police officer in each district to prevent mob violence. Statement 3 is INCORRECT: The CJI has recently stated that the "general directions" issued in the judgment are "unmanageable," indicating dissatisfaction rather than satisfaction with its implementation.
2. Which of the following fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution are most directly violated by incidents of mob violence and vigilantism? 1. Article 14 (Equality before Law) 2. Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) 3. Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) Select the correct answer using the code given below:
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: C
Article 14 (Equality before Law) is violated when certain individuals or groups are targeted by mob violence due to their religion, caste, or other identity markers. Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty) is violated when individuals are subjected to physical harm or even death as a result of mob violence. While Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression) can be indirectly related to the spread of hate speech that incites mob violence, it is not as directly violated as Articles 14 and 21 in the act of mob violence itself.
3. Assertion (A): The Chief Justice of India has expressed concerns about the manageability of the general directions issued in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment. Reason (R): Implementing broad directives across diverse situations poses significant challenges for law enforcement agencies. In the context of the above, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
- B.Both A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
- C.A is true but R is false
- D.A is false but R is true
Show Answer
Answer: A
Both the assertion and the reason are true, and the reason correctly explains the assertion. The CJI's concerns stem from the practical difficulties in implementing broad directives across diverse situations, which poses challenges for law enforcement agencies.
Source Articles
Cow Vigilantism: CJI says 'general' directions in 2018 hate crime judgment may be 'unmanageable' - The Hindu
Evening Wrap | February 23, 2026 - The Hindu
Top news of the day: February 23, 2026 - The Hindu
Don’t wait for complaints to act against hate speech, Supreme Court tells police - The Hindu
Hate crime and punishment: The Hindu Editorial on violence over ‘hurt sentiments’ - The Hindu
About the Author
Ritu SinghEngineer & Current Affairs Analyst
Ritu Singh writes about Polity & Governance at GKSolver, breaking down complex developments into clear, exam-relevant analysis.
View all articles →