REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA   

 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION   

 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 754 OF 2016  

 Tehseen S. Poonawalla             ...Petitioner(s)  

 Versus  

Union of India and others                  ...Respondent(s)    

W I T H     

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. 764 OF 2016  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. 768 OF 2016  WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) N0. 732 OF 2017   

WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 122 OF 2017  

 J U D G M E N T   

Dipak Misra, CJI  

Law, enacted for the benefit of the society by conferring  

rights on the citizens and to regulate social behaviour in many a  

sphere, is required to be implemented by the law enforcing  

agencies and the citizens are duty bound to follow the law  

treating it as sacred. Law has to be regarded as the foundation of  

a civilized society. The primary goal of law is to have an orderly  

society where the citizenry dreams for change and progress is  

realized and the individual aspiration finds space for expression  

of his/her potential. In such an atmosphere while every citizen is

2    

entitled to enjoy the rights and interest bestowed under the  

constitutional and statutory law, he is also obligated to remain  

obeisant to the command of law. It has been stated in   

Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others 1 , “the law, the  

mightiest sovereign in a civilized society”. The majesty of law  

cannot be sullied simply because an individual or a group  

generate the attitude that they have been empowered by the  

principles set out in law to take its enforcement into their own  

hands and gradually become law unto themselves and punish  

the violator on their own assumption and in the manner in which  

they deem fit.  They forget that the administration of law is  

conferred on the law enforcing agencies and no one is allowed to  

take law into his own hands on the fancy of his “shallow spirit of  

judgment”. Just as one is entitled to fight for his rights in law,  

the other is entitled to be treated as innocent till he is found  

guilty after a fair trial. No act of a citizen is to be adjudged by any  

kind of community under the guise of protectors of law. It is the  

seminal requirement of law that an accused is booked under law  

and is dealt with in accordance with the procedure without any  

obstruction so that substantive justice is done. No individual in  

                                                           1  (2015) 3 SCC 467

3    

his own capacity or as a part of a group, which within no time  

assumes the character of a mob, can take law into his/their  

hands and deal with a person treating him as guilty. That is not  

only contrary to the paradigm of established legal principles in  

our legal system but also inconceivable in a civilized society that  

respects the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. And, needless  

to say, such ideas and conceptions not only create a dent in the  

majesty of law but are also absolutely obnoxious.   

2. It is worthy to note that the reliefs sought in all the writ  

petitions have commonality, although the expression of language  

as well as the width of the prayer is slightly different. What really  

emanates as the pivotal issue requiring our contemplated  

consideration is the duty of this Court under the constitutional  

framework to deal with the primary grievance that pertains to  

cow vigilantism and other incidents of lynching or, if we may say  

so, targeted violence and commission of offences affecting the  

human body and against private and public property by mobs  

under the garb of self-assumed and self-appointed protectors of  

law.   

3. We shall state the facts in brief, for there are asseverations  

with regard to numerous incidents of lynching and mob violence

4    

which need not be specifically stated since we are going to issue  

certain directions covering the arena of preventive, remedial and  

punitive measures. We shall note the suggestions given by Mr.  

Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel in one of the writ  

petitions. We may further state that we shall refer to the facts in  

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016.   

4. The petitioner, a social activist, has preferred this writ  

petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for commanding the  

respondent-State Nos. 3 to 8 to take immediate and necessary  

action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence;  

and further to issue a writ or direction to remove the violent  

contents from the social media uploaded and hosted by the said  

groups. There is also a prayer to declare Section 12 of the  

Gujarat Animal Prevention Act, 1954, Section 13 of the  

Maharashtra Animal Prevention Act, 1976 and Section 15 of the  

Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation  

Act, 1964 as unconstitutional. Certain incidents have also been  

narrated in the Writ Petition.  

5. When the matter was taken up alongwith other matters on  

21st July, 2017, the Court, while not dealing with the third  

prayer, that is, for declaring certain provisions of the statutes

5    

mentioned hereinabove as unconstitutional, proceeded to state  

thus:-  

"As far as the first prayer is concerned, on  being asked, it is submitted by Mr. Ranjit  Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for  the Union of India that the controversy relates  to the States, law and order being a State  subject. He further submits that the Union of  India does not support the activities of the  vigilantes.    Ms. Hemantika Wahi, learned Standing  Counsel for the State of Gujarat echoing the  aforesaid submission contends that certain  persons who were engaged in this kind of  activity, especially the incident that has been  referred to in the writ petition, have been  booked for relevant offences and appropriate  police action is taken against them. Mr.  Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the  State of Jharkhand submits that appropriate  legal action has been taken and the criminal  cases have been instituted against the persons  who have taken law unto their hands.     At this juncture, it is submitted by Mr. Sanjay  R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for  the petitioner that the Union of India and the  State Governments should file their respective  affidavits. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor  General and the other learned counsel  appearing for the States pray for four weeks'  time to file counter affidavit. Needless to say,  the counter affidavit shall also refer to the  incidents, if any, referred to in the writ  petitions.     As far as the prayer No.2 is concerned, Mr.  Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General and  the learned counsel appearing for the various  States shall assist the Court as to how the

6    

activities of the vigilantes can be absolutely  curtailed and suggest ways and methods to  work out the same."  

 6. Be it noted, when Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2017 was  

listed along with the main writ petition, i.e., Writ Petition (Civil)  

No. 754 of 2016, on 6th September, 2017, the Court, while  

issuing notice, noted the statement made by the learned  

Solicitor General on the previous occasion and, thereafter, noted  

the submissions advanced by Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior  

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta,  

learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of  

India. We think it appropriate to reproduce the said order as it  

contains certain interim directions:-  

"After referring to the same, it is urged by her  that the law and order enforcing agencies of  the States have great responsibility not only to  register the First Information Report (FIR) after  the incident takes place but also see to it that  groups or a class of people do not take the law  into their hands and indulge in vigilantism.  Additionally, it is her submission that under  Article 256 of the Constitution of India, it is  the obligation of the Central Government to  issue directions to the States so that the  concept of cooperative federalism is sustained  and remains stable.    Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor  General appearing for the Union of India shall  take instructions with regard to the role of the  Union of India.   

7    

When we are going to pass an ad interim  order, Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional  Solicitor General appearing for the States of  Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra and Rajasthan  submitted that these States will nominate a  senior police officer of the Police Department  as the Nodal Officer in each District, who shall  ensure that these vigilantes do not take law  unto themselves or behave in a manner that  they are the law in themselves. If any kind of  deviancy takes place, the said Nodal Officer  shall take action and such vigilantes are  booked in accordance with law with quite  promptitude.     An issue has been raised by Ms. Indira  Jaising, learned senior counsel with regard to  patrolling on the highways so that such crimes  are stopped. Mr. Tushar Mehta, appearing for  the States of Gujarat, Haryana, Maharashtra  and Rajasthan 4 shall obtain instructions in  this regard and also apprise what steps have  been taken by the said four States. As far as  Highway patrolling is concerned, the Chief  Secretary of each State, in consultation with  the Director General of Police shall take steps  and file affidavits by the next date of hearing.    As far as the other States are concerned, it is  directed that each of them shall nominate a  senior Police Officer qua each District as Nodal  Officer, who shall see to it that these vigilantes  do not take law unto themselves and the  deviants in law are booked quite promptly.     A copy of the order be sent to the Chief  Secretary of all the States."    

7. On 22nd September, 2017, when the matter was listed, it  

was noted that the States of Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka,  

Jharkhand, Gujarat and Rajasthan had filed the compliance

8    

affidavit and an undertaking was given on behalf of the State of  

Bihar to file the affidavit of compliance in the course of the day.  

8. In pursuance of our order, the State of Uttar Pradesh has  

filed an affidavit annexing a communication sent by the  

Secretary, Department of Home (Police) to Senior  

Superintendents of Police/All Superintendents of Police of all  

the districts in Uttar Pradesh. We think it appropriate to refer to  

the relevant paragraphs of the said communication:-  

“I have been directed to say that while  ensuring the compliance of the aforesaid  orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India,  an effective control  must be maintained over  the Criminal Activities of the Vigilantes.  Besides it the Designated Nodal Officer of each  district shall take effective and prompt  measures to curve the Criminal Activities of  such Vigilantes. It must be ensured that such  antisocial elements are not permitted to  involve themselves in any of such criminal  activities.  

3. In the monthly crime meetings, this issue  must be included as one of the issue to be  closely monitored. It must be regularly  reviewed.  Besides it, the Local Intelligence  Unit must be deputed to identify such  Vigilante and an strict watch be maintained on  their activities.   

4. It is further directed that while patrolling  on the National Highways and other roads, the  Local Police and dial 100 be directed to ensure  that no Vigilante takes over Law and Order in  its hands and commits a Criminal Act.  Prompt  enquiries be made against the unlawful

9    

activities of such antisocial elements and  necessary legal action be taken against them  through the designated Nodal Officers posed in  their Districts. In case any such incidents  comes to the notice of the local Police or dial  100 during the patrolling, the same may be  brought to the Notice of the Nodal Officer  immediately.  Thereafter further legal action  may be ensured promptly by such designated  Nodal Officers.  

5. It is therefore directed that the aforesaid  process is regularly adopted, reviewed and  monitored from time to time and the details if  any be forwarded to the Director General of  Police U.P. Lucknow, who shall also designate  a Nodal Officer out of the Officers posted at the  Police Headquarters.  This matter must be  reviewed regularly in each of the monthly  meetings and the necessary details after  reviewing the situation be made available to  the State Government latest by 10th of the each  Month.”  

9. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat  

annexing orders dated 07.09.2017 and 11.09.2017 passed by  

the Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Gujarat  

State and by the Inspector General of Police, State Traffic  

Branch. The first order reads thus:-  

“The volunteers of the organizations associated  with cow protection or compassion for animals  as well as other citizens have no right to take  law into their own hands to resort to violence  or other illegal acts, either collectively or  individually, targeted against the individuals  undertaking transportation of animals or  carrying on the trade in animals/meat, under  the guise of cow protection, the protection of

10    

the cow progeny or in the name of compassion  for animals.  With a view to effectively curb  such illegal activities, the Hon‟ble Supreme  Court has directed vide the Order in question  to nominate a senior Police Officer qua each  district as the Nodal Officer. The Nodal Officer  to be so nominated shall be required to make  effective arrangements in his jurisdiction,  especially on the highways, to obviate illegal  acts and violence in the name of cow  protection or compassion for animals. If some  incidents does take place even after taking all  precautions, the Nodal Officer shall have to  ensure that prompt and effective legal action is  initiated against the vigilantes involved in the  incident. To achieve these objectives, the  following officers are hereby nominated as the  Nodal Officers in the Police Commissionerates    and Police Districts in the State of Gujarat.                  

2. With a view to ensure effective legal  proceedings in all offences that may get  registered in connection with the illegal  activities under consideration, the Director  General of Police, CID (Crime and Railways),  Gujarat State, Gandhinagar shall undertake  quarterly review of all such cases.”  

Area Nodal Officer  

Police  Commissionerate  

Concerned  Commissioner of  Police  

Police District Concerned  Superintendent of  Police  

Jurisdiction of  Western Railway,  Ahmedabad/Vadodra  

Concerned  Superintendent of  Police, Western  Railway

11    

10. A communication has been sent by the Inspector General of  

Police, State Traffic Branch from the office of the Director  

General to all the Police Commissioners, Range Heads and  

Police Superintendents (including Western Railway,  

Ahmedabad). The relevant part of the said communication reads  

thus:-  

“While such incidents take place in certain  specific places, specific roads and particular  areas, such spots on National Highway, State  Highway and other roads be identified and  mapped. Further, as is known, there is a  specific pattern of violent incidents taking  place and such workers have their camps at  particular time, particular spots and they  intercept vehicles at certain specific places.  Therefore, such time slots and venues be  identified within area of your jurisdiction as  also specific modus operandi being followed by  the persons involved in transportation of cows  be studied further and all police  officers/personnel should be briefed about the  routes, time, vehicles and methods of packing  in vehicles used by such persons and instruct  them to keep vigil watch on them.     3. After surveying the area, secret watch be  deployed at the sensitive spots (vulnerability  mapping) so identified and considering the  modus operandi of transporters of Gauvansh  and the practices of Cow Protectors. Further,  arrangements for intensive patrolling be made  and thus prevent happening such violent  incidents.     4. Considering sensitivity and gravity of violent  assaults on traders engaged in transportation

12    

of animals/meat, it should be ensured that no  so-called workers or organizations must  interfere in functioning of police in such cases,  that no private persons should take law in  their hands and make arrangements for  spreading awareness among all concerned  persons to prevent occurrence of such  incidents.    5. It shall be ensured that all the statutes  concerning cows and animals be followed by  Police Department. Verification of legality or  otherwise of transportation of animals/meat is  authority of police department only. However,  due to interference in this by individuals or  organizations other than police lead to  situation of conflicts and law and order issues,  occurrence of violent incidents hence all  possible efforts may be made to prevent the  same and whenever any such incident takes  place, legal procedures be initiated  immediately and effective action be taken by  tracing all the accused involved within further  delay.”    

It is noticeable that Nodal Officers have been nominated.   

There are affidavits filed by the other States indicating how  

compliance has been carried out.  

11. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for  

the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016, while  

substantiating the assertions made in the writ petition,  

submitted that no individual or vigilante group can engage  

himself/themselves in an activity of lynching solely on the basis  

of a perception that a crime has been committed.  That apart,

13    

submits Mr. Hegde, the supremacy of law has to be recognized  

and if a law prescribes a punishment for a crime, it has the  

mechanism provided under the law to do so.  The procedural and  

the substantial safeguards are required to be followed.  It is  

urged by Mr. Hegde, with all the emphasis at his command, that  

lynching or any kind of mob violence has to be curbed and  

crippled by the executive and no excuse can ever be tolerated.   

Stress is laid on prevention, remedial and punitive measures.  In  

this regard, he has placed reliance on a recent judgment  

rendered in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India & others2.  

12. At this juncture, we may enumerate the submissions  

advanced by Ms. Indira Jaisingh, learned senior counsel for the  

petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2017. She has  

referred to Martin Luther King Jr. wherein he had said that law  

may not be able to make a man love him, but it can keep the man  

from lynching him.  She submits that there has been a constant  

increase in the number of incidents in recent years as a  

consequence of which citizens belonging to minority communities  

have become victims of targeted violence which mainly originate  

on suspicion and at times misinformation that the victims were  

                                                           2  2018 (5) SCALE 51

14    

involved in illegal cattle trade and such other activities.  Learned  

senior counsel has also referred to certain specific incidents of  

lynching. It is additionally argued by her that the Central  

Government be directed to intervene in exercise of the power  

conferred under Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution to issue  

directions to the State Governments.   

13. It is urged by her that in the recent past, self proclaimed  

and self-styled vigilantes have brazenly taken law into themselves  

and have targeted citizens belonging to certain communities and  

lower strata of the society which cannot be tolerated and it is the  

obligation of the Union and the States to take immediate action  

warranted in law to stop such activities.  She has further  

submitted that there have been many an incident of lynching  

mostly by vigilante groups across the States of Maharashtra,  

Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya  

Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi. It is her stringent  

stand that action is required to be taken against the perpetrators  

when approached by the family members of the victim.   

14. She has canvassed that it is the foremost duty of the  

Central and the State Governments to ensure that the members  

of the minorities are not targeted by mob violence and vigilante

15    

groups and if the illegal actions of these lynchers are not totally  

curbed, there would be absolute chaos where any private  

individual can take law into his own hands for the enforcement of  

criminal law in accordance with his own judgment.   

15. At the very inception, while delving into the rivalised  

submissions advanced at the Bar, it is necessary to understand  

that a controversy of the present nature deserves to be addressed  

with enormous sensitivity.  We had issued certain directions as  

an interim measure and there has been some compliance but we  

are of the considered opinion that the situations that have  

emerged and the problems that have arisen need to be totally  

curbed. The States have the onerous duty to see that no  

individual or any core group take law into their own hands. Every  

citizen has the right to intimate the police about the infraction of  

law. As stated earlier, an accused booked for an offence is  

entitled to fair and speedy trial under the constitutional and  

statutory scheme and, thereafter, he may be convicted or  

acquitted as per the adjudication by the judiciary on the basis of  

the evidence brought on record and the application of legal  

principles. There cannot be an investigation, trial and  

punishment of any nature on the streets. The process of

16    

adjudication takes place within the hallowed precincts of the  

courts of justice and not on the streets. No one has the right to  

become the guardian of law claiming that he has to protect the  

law by any means.  It is the duty of the States, as has been  

stated in Nandini Sundar and others v. State of  

Chhattisgarh 3 , to strive, incessantly and consistently, to  

promote fraternity amongst all citizens so that the dignity of  

every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted.  That apart,  

it is the responsibility of the States to prevent untoward incidents  

and to prevent crime.   

16. In Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and  

another4, it has been clearly held that it is the responsibility of  

the State Administration in association with the intelligence  

agencies of both the State and the Centre to prevent recurrence  

of communal violence in any part of the State. If any officer  

responsible for maintaining law and order is found negligent,  

he/she should be brought within the ambit of law. In this  

context, reference to the authority in Archbishop Raphael  

Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and another5 would be  

useful. In the said case, while dealing with the issue of  

                                                           3  (2011) 7 SCC 547  4   (2014) 5 SCC 252  5   (2016) 9 SCC 682

17    

communal violence, the Court observed that the State  

Government shall do well to enquire into and find the causes for  

such communal unrest and strengthen the fabric of the society.   

It further stated that strengthening of police infrastructure in the  

district would undoubtedly help in curbing any recurrence of  

such communal violence. Emphasis was also laid on  

simultaneous peace-building measures.   

17. There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities which  

are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in  

the States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be  

it cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does  

not take place. When any core group with some kind of idea take  

the law into their own hands, it ushers in anarchy, chaos,  

disorder and, eventually, there is an emergence of a violent  

society.  Vigilantism cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be  

given room to take shape, for it is absolutely a perverse notion.  

We may note here that certain applications for intervention and  

written notes have been filed in this regard supporting the same  

on the basis that there is cattle smuggling and cruel treatment to  

animals. In this context, suffice it to say that it is the law  

enforcing agencies which have to survey, prevent and prosecute.

18    

No one has the authority to enter into the said field and harbour  

the feeling that he is the law and the punisher himself.  A  

country where the rule of law prevails does not allow any such  

thought.  It, in fact, commands for ostracisation of such thoughts  

with immediacy.   

18.  Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted  

values of the Constitution itself. We may say without any fear of  

contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric  

violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be  

allowed to become the order of the day.  Such vigilantism, be it  

for whatever purpose or borne out of whatever cause, has the  

effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the  

State and altering the constitutional order. These extrajudicial  

attempts under the guise of protection of the law have to be  

nipped in the bud; lest it would lead to rise of anarchy and  

lawlessness which would plague and corrode the nation like an  

epidemic. The tumultuous dark clouds of vigilantism have the  

effect of shrouding the glorious ways of democracy and justice  

leading to tragic breakdown of the law and transgressing all  

forms of civility and humanity. Unless these incidents are  

controlled, the day is not far when such monstrosity in the name

19    

of self-professed morality is likely to assume the shape of a huge  

cataclysm. It is in direct violation of the quintessential spirit of  

the rule of law and of the exalted faiths of tolerance and  

humanity.  

19. Mob vigilantism and mob violence have to be prevented by  

the governments by taking strict action and by the vigil society  

who ought to report such incidents to the state machinery and  

the police instead of taking the law into their own hands. Rising  

intolerance and growing polarisation expressed through spate of  

incidents of mob violence cannot be permitted to become the  

normal way of life or the normal state of law and order in the  

country. Good governance and nation building require  

sustenance of law and order which is intricately linked to the  

preservation of the marrows of our social structure.  In such a  

situation, the State has a sacrosanct duty to protect its citizens  

from unruly elements and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching  

and vigilantism with utmost sincerity and true commitment to  

address and curb such incidents which must reflect in its actions  

and schemes.  

20. Hate crimes as a product of intolerance, ideological  

dominance and prejudice ought not to be tolerated; lest it results

20    

in a reign of terror. Extra judicial elements and non-State actors  

cannot be allowed to take the place of law or the law enforcing  

agency. A fabricated identity with bigoted approach sans  

acceptance of plurality and diversity results in provocative  

sentiments and display of reactionary retributive attitude  

transforming itself into dehumanisation of human beings. Such  

an atmosphere is one in which rational debate, logical discussion  

and sound administration of law eludes thereby manifesting clear  

danger to various freedoms including freedom of speech and  

expression. One man's freedom of thought, action, speech,  

expression, belief, conscience and personal choices is not being  

tolerated by the other and this is due to lack of objective  

rationalisation of acts and situations. In this regard, it has been  

aptly said:-   

"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a  free government; When this support is taken  away, the constitution of a free society is  dissolved and tyranny is erected on its ruins."6  

 21. Freedom of speech and expression in different forms is the  

élan vital of sustenance of all other rights and is the very seed for  

germinating the growth of democratic views. Plurality of voices  

celebrates the constitutionalist idea of a liberal democracy and  

                                                           6   Benjamin Franklin, On Freedom of Speech and the Press, from the Pennsylvania  

Gazette, November, 1737

21    

ought not to be suppressed. That is the idea and essence of our  

nation which cannot be, to borrow a line from Rabindranath  

Tagore, “broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls” of  

caste, creed, race, class or religion. Pluralism and tolerance are  

essential virtues and constitute the building blocks of a truly free  

and democratic society. It must be emphatically stated that a  

dynamic contemporary constitutional democracy imbibes the  

essential feature of accommodating pluralism in thought and  

approach so as to preserve cohesiveness and unity. Intolerance  

arising out of a dogmatic mindset sows the seeds of upheaval and  

has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and expression.  

Hence, tolerance has to be fostered and practised and not allowed  

to be diluted in any manner.  

22. In S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram and others 7 ,                   

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J., although in a different context, referred  

to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in  

Handyside v. United Kingdom8 wherein it has been held thus  

in the context of Article 10 of the European Convention on  

Human Rights (ECHR):-   

"The court‟s supervisory functions oblige it to  pay the utmost attention to the principles  

                                                           7  (1989) 2 SCC 574  8  1976 EHRR 737, at p. 754

22    

characterizing a „democratic society‟. Freedom  of expression constitutes one of the essential  foundations of such a society, one of the basic  conditions for its progress and for the  development of every man. Subject to Article  10(2), it is applicable not only to „information‟  or „ideas‟ that are favourably received or  regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of  indifference, but also to those that offend,  shock or disturb the State or any sector of the  population. Such are the demands of that  pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness  without which there is no „democratic society‟."  

 23. In a rights based approach to constitutional legitimacy, the  

right to life and liberty is considered paramount and, therefore,  

democratic governments must propel and drive towards stronger  

foothold for liberties so as to ensure sustenance of higher values  

of democracy thereby paving the path for a spontaneous  

constitutional order. Crime knows no religion and neither the  

perpetrator nor the victim can be viewed through the lens of race,  

caste, class or religion. The State has a positive obligation to  

protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all individuals  

irrespective of race, caste, class or religion. The State has the  

primary responsibility to foster a secular, pluralistic and multi-

culturalistic social order so as to allow free play of ideas and  

beliefs and co-existence of mutually contradictory perspectives.  

Stifling free voices can never bode well for a true democracy.  It is

23    

essential to build societies which embrace diversity in all spheres  

and rebuild trust of the citizenry in the State machinery.  

24. Lynching and mob violence are creeping threats that may  

gradually take the shape of a Typhon-like monster as evidenced  

in the wake of the rising wave of incidents of recurring patterns  

by frenzied mobs across the country instigated by intolerance  

and misinformed by circulation of fake news and false stories.  

There has been an unfortunate litany of spiralling mob violence  

and agonized horror presenting a grim and gruesome picture that  

compels us to reflect whether the populace of a great Republic  

like ours has lost the values of tolerance to sustain a diverse  

culture.  Besides, bystander apathy, numbness of the mute  

spectators of the scene of the crime, inertia of the law enforcing  

machinery to prevent such crimes and nip them in the bud and  

grandstanding of the incident by the perpetrators of the crimes  

including in the social media aggravates the entire problem. One  

must constantly remind oneself that an attitude of morbid  

intolerance is absolutely intolerable and agonizingly painful.  

25. Lynching, at one point of time, was so rampant in the  

United States that Mark Twain had observed in his inimitable

24    

style that it had become "the United States of Lyncherdom".  The  

sarcasm is apparent.  

26. In the obtaining situation, the need to preserve and  

maintain unity amongst the fellow citizens of our country, who  

represent different castes, creed and races, follow different  

religions and use multiple languages, ought to be discussed and  

accentuated. It is requisite to state that our country must  

sustain, exalt and celebrate the feeling  of solidarity and harmony  

so that the spirit of oneness is entrenched in the collective  

character.  Sans such harmony and understanding, we may  

unwittingly pave the path of disaster.   

27. In St. Stephen's College v. University of Delhi9, while  

emphasizing on the significance of „Unity in Diversity‟, the Court  

has observed that the aim of our Constitution is unity in diversity  

and to impede any fissiparous tendencies for enriching the unity  

amongst Indians by assimilating the diversities. The meaning of  

diversity in its connotative expanse of the term would include  

geographical, religious, linguistic, racial and cultural differences.  

It is absolutely necessary to underscore that India represents a  

social, religious and cultural diversity.   

                                                           9   (1992) 1 SCC 558

25    

28. „Unity‟ in the context of a nation means unity amongst the  

fellow citizens. It implies integration of the citizens whereby the  

citizens embrace a feeling of „We‟ with a sense of bonding with  

fellow citizens which would definitely go a long way in holding the  

Indian society together. Emile Durkheim, French sociologist, has  

said that when unity is based on heterogeneity and diversity, it  

can very well be described as organic solidarity. Durkheim‟s view  

would be acceptable in the context of the Indian society as it  

exhibits a completely organic social solidarity.   

29. The Court in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath  

Temple, Varanasi and others  v. State of U.P. and others10.  

has highlighted that religious tolerance is an important facet of  

„Unity in Diversity‟ and observed thus:-  

“Unity in diversity is the Indian culture and  ethos. The tolerance of all religious faiths,  respect for each other's religion are our ethos.  These pave the way and foundation for  integration and national unity and foster  respect for each others religion; religious faith  and belief. Integration of Bharat is, thus, its  

arch.”  

[Emphasis supplied]  

                                                           10   (1997) 4 SCC 606

26    

30. In State of Karnataka and another v. Dr. Praveen Bhai  

Thogadia11, stress has been laid on „Unity in Diversity‟ treating it  

as the ideal way of life considering that our nation is a unification  

of people coming from diverse cultures, religions and races. The  

Court further went on to say that our nation has the world‟s most  

heterogeneous society having a rich heritage where the  

Constitution is committed to the high ideas of socialism,  

secularism and the integrity of the nation and problems, if any,  

that arise on the path of the nation‟s progress are mostly solved  

on the basis of human approaches and harmonious  

reconciliation of differences. The following observations made by  

the Court in the aforesaid case with regard to the need to  

preserve the unified social fabric are also important:-  

“It is, therefore, imperative that if any  individual or group of persons, by their action  or caustic and inflammatory speech are bent  upon sowing seed of mutual hatred, and their  proposed activities are likely to create  disharmony and disturb equilibrium,  sacrificing public peace and tranquility, strong  action, and more so preventive actions are  essentially and vitally needed to be taken. Any  speech or action which would result in  ostracization of communal harmony would  destroy all those high values which the  Constitution aims at. Welfare of the people is  the ultimate goal of all laws, and State action  

                                                           11   (2004) 4 SCC 684

27    

and above all the Constitution. They have one  common object, that is to promote well being  and larger interest of the society as a whole  and not of any individual or particular groups  carrying any brand names. It is inconceivable  that there can be social well being without  communal harmony, love for each other and  

hatred for none.”   

[Emphasis added]  

31. Unity in Diversity must be recognized as the most potent  

weapon in India‟s armoury which binds different and varied  

kinds of people in the solemn thread of humanity. This diversity  

is the strength of our nation and for realizing this strength, it is  

sine qua non that we sustain it and shun schismatic tendencies.  

It has to be remembered that the unique feature of „Unity in  

Diversity‟ inculcates in the citizens the virtue of respecting the  

opinions and choices of others.  Such respect imbibes the feeling  

of acceptance of plurality and elevates the idea of tolerance by  

promoting social cohesion and infusing a sense of fraternity and  

comity.   

32. In this context, the observations in State of Uttar Pradesh  

v. Lalai Singh Yadav12 are apt:-  

“The State, in India, is secular and does not  take sides with one religion or other prevalent  in our pluralistic society. It has no direct  

                                                           12   (1976) 4 SCC 213

28    

concern with the faiths of the people but is  deeply obligated not merely to preserve and  protect society against breaches of the peace  and violations of public order but also to create  conditions where the sentiments and feelings  of people of diverse or opposing beliefs and  bigotries are not so molested by ribald writings  or offence publications as to provoke or  outrage groups into possible violent action.  Essentially, good government necessitates  peace and security..”  

Thus, for our nation to survive, without being whittled down,  

it is a necessary precondition that all must embrace the  

sentiment that they are the essential constituents of diversity  

that galvanizes for preservation of unity and respects pluralistic  

perceptions  in cohesion with the constitutional ethos.    

33. Having stated about the need of tolerance in a pluralistic  

society, we may refer with profit that the Court in D.K. Basu v.  

State of West Bengal 13 , after referring to the authorities in  

Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others 14 , Nilabati  

Behera v. State of Orissa and others15 and State of M.P. v.  

Shyamsunder Trivedi and others 16 , laid down certain  

guidelines to be followed in cases of arrest and detention.  In  

                                                           13  (1997) 1 SCC 416  14   (1994) 4 SCC 260  15   (1993) 2 SCC 746  16   (1995) 4 SCC 262

29    

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and another17, this Court  

referred to Section 41-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and  

ruled thus:-  

“7.3. In pith and core, the police officer before  arrest must put a question to himself, why  arrest? Is it really required? What purpose it  will serve? What object it will achieve? It is  only after these questions are addressed and  one or the other conditions as enumerated  above is satisfied, the power of arrest needs to  be exercised. In fine, before arrest first the  police officers should have reason to believe on  the basis of information and material that the  accused has committed the offence. Apart from  this, the police officer has to be satisfied  further that the arrest is necessary for one or  the more purposes envisaged by sub-clauses  

(a) to (e) of clause (1) of Section 41 CrPC.”  

 34. The purpose of referring to the said authorities is that the  

law provides a procedure for arrest and equally for investigation  

and the consequential trial.  That is what has been interpreted by  

this Court while dealing with Article 21 of the Constitution.   

Thus, the rights of the citizens cannot be destroyed in an  

unlawful manner.  As the investigating agency has to show  

fidelity to the statutory safeguards, similarly, every citizen is  

required to express loyalty to law and the legal procedure.  No  

one, and we repeat no one, is entitled to take the law into his own  

                                                           17   (2014) 8 SCC 273

30    

hands and annihilate anything that the majesty of law protects.   

When the vigilantes involve themselves in lynching or any kind of  

brutality, they, in fact, put the requisite accountability of a  

citizen to law on the ventilator.  That cannot be countenanced.   

Such core groups cannot be allowed to act as they please.  They  

cannot be permitted to indulge in freezing the peace of life on the  

basis of their contrived notions.  They are no one to punish a  

person by ascribing any justification. The stand and stance put  

forth in the interlocutory applications filed by the impleaded  

parties intend to convey certain contraventions of the provisions  

of statutory law but the prescription of punishment does not  

empower any one to authorize himself to behave as the protector  

of law and impose punishment as per his choice and fancy.  That  

is the role and duty of the law enforcing agencies known to law.   

No one else can be permitted to expropriate that role.  It has to be  

clearly understood that self-styled vigilantes have no role in that  

sphere.  Their only right is to inform the crime, if any, to the law  

enforcing agency.  It is the duty of the law enforcement agencies  

and  the prosecutors to bring the accused persons before the law  

adjudicating authorities who, with their innate training and  

sense of justice, peruse the materials brought on record, follow

31    

the provisions of law and pass the judgment. In the scheme of  

things, the external forces cannot assume the role of protectors  

and once they pave the said path, they  associate themselves with  

criminality and bring themselves in the category of criminals. It is  

imperative for them to remember that they are subservient to the  

law and cannot be guided by notions or emotions or sentiments  

or, for that matter, faith.    

35. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from Shakti  

Vahini (supra) which, though pronounced in a different context,  

has certain significance:-  

“The 'Khap Panchayats' or such assembly  should not take the law into their hands and  further cannot assume the character of the law  implementing agency, for that authority has  not been conferred upon them under any law.  Law has to be allowed to sustain by the law  enforcement agencies. For example, when a  crime under Indian Penal Code is committed,  an assembly of people cannot impose the  punishment. They have no authority. They are  entitled to lodge an FIR or inform the police.  They may also facilitate so that the Accused is  dealt with in accordance with law. But, by  putting forth a stand that they are spreading  awareness, they really can neither affect  others' fundamental rights nor cover up their  own illegal acts. It is simply not permissible. In  fact, it has to be condemned as an act  abhorrent to law and, therefore, it has to stop.  Their activities are to be stopped in entirety.  There is no other alternative. What is illegal  cannot commend recognition or acceptance.”

32    

 36.  We may now refer to some of the authorities of the  

American Courts which have dealt with the menace of lynching  

which, at one point of time, was very rampant in the American  

society. The American Courts deplored this menace and dealt it  

with iron hands so as to eradicate the same. Ex parte Riggins18  

was a case involving the lynching of a Negro citizen who had been  

imprisoned on the charge of murder. While he was imprisoned in  

jail, the mob removed him and lynched him by hanging.  

Thereafter, certain mobsters involved in the said hanging were  

indicted. A petition of habeas corpus was filed seeking the release  

of the said mobsters on the ground that there was no law in the  

United States which legalized the indictment of the said  

mobsters. While disposing of the said habeas corpus petition and  

upholding the indictment, Thomas Goode Jones, J. made the  

following relevant observations:-  

"When a private individual takes a person  charged with crime from the custody of the  state authorities to prevent the state from  affording him due process of law, and puts him  to death to punish the crime and to prevent  the enjoyment of such right, it is violent  usurpation and exercise, in the particular  case, of the very function which the  Constitution of the United States itself, under  this clause [the 14th Amendment] directs the  

                                                           18   (C.C.N.D. Ala., 1904) 134 Fed. 404

33    

state to perform in the interest of the citizen.  Such lawlessness differs from ordinary  kidnapping and murder, in that dominant  intent and actual result is usurpation and  exercise by private individuals of the sovereign  functions of administering justice and  punishing crime, in order to defeat the  performance of duties required of the state by  the supreme law of the land. The inevitable  effect of such lawlessness is not merely to  prevent the state from performing its duty, but  to deprive the accused of all enjoyment, or  opportunity of enjoyment of rights which this  clause of the Constitution intended to work  out for him by the actual performance by the  state of all things included in affording due  process of law, which enjoyment can be  worked out in no other way in his individual  case. Such lawlessness defeats the  performance of the state's duty, and the  opportunity of the citizen to have the benefit of  it, quite as effectually and far more frequently  than vicious laws, or the partiality or the  inefficiency of state officers in the discharge of  their constitutional duty. It is a great,  notorious, and growing evil, which directly  attacks the purpose which the Constitution of  the United States had in view when it enjoined  the duty upon the state."  

 37. In Wilson v. Garcia19, the Supreme Court of the United  

States referred to the debates of the Parliament while enacting  

the Civil Rights Act of 1871 which are relevant in the present  

context and read as follows:-  

"While murder is stalking abroad in disguise,  while whippings and lynchings and banishing  have been visited upon unoffending American  

                                                           19  471 U.S. 261 (1985)

34    

citizens, the local administrations have been  found inadequate or unwilling to apply the  proper corrective. Combinations, darker than  the night that hides them, conspiracies,  wicked as the worst of felons could devise,  have gone unwhipped of justice. Immunity is  given to crime, and the records of public  tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence  of effective redress.3"    

38. Thus, the decisions of this Court as well as the authorities  

from other jurisdictions clearly show that every citizen has to  

abide by the law and the law never confers the power on a citizen  

to become the law unto himself or take law into his hands.   The  

idea is absolutely despicable, the thought is utterly detestable  

and the action is obnoxious and completely hellish. It is  

nauseatingly perverse.   In the aforesaid hearing, Mr. Hegde, as  

stated earlier, gave the preventive, remedial and punitive  

measures to be laid down as guidelines by this Court.  Ms. Indira  

Jaising, learned senior counsel, has placed reliance on Pravasi  

Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India and others20 to submit  

that these guidelines do come under Sections 153 and 295A IPC  

and this Court has elaborately dealt with the same.    

39. There is no dispute that the act of lynching is unlawful but  

we are not concerned with any specific case since it has become a  

                                                           20   (2014) 11 SCC 477

35    

sweeping phenomenon with a far-reaching impact. It is our  

constitutional duty to take a call to protect lives and human  

rights. There cannot be a right higher than the right to live with  

dignity and further to be treated with humanness that the law  

provides. What the law provides may be taken away by lawful  

means; that is the fundamental concept of law.  No one is entitled  

to shake the said foundation. No citizen can assault the human  

dignity of another, for such an action would comatose the  

majesty of law. In a civilized society, it is the fear of law that  

prevents crimes. Commencing from the legal space of democratic  

Athens till the legal system of modern societies today, the law  

makers try to prevent crimes and make the people aware of the  

same but some persons who develop masterly skill to transgress  

the law jostle in the streets that eventually leads to an  

atmosphere which witnesses bloodshed and tears. When the  

preventive measures face failure, the crime takes place and then  

there have to be remedial and punitive measures. Steps to be  

taken at every stage for implementation of law are extremely  

important. Hence, the guidelines are necessary to be prescribed.  

40. In view of the aforesaid, we proceed to issue the following  

guidelines:-  

36    

A. Preventive Measures  

(i) The State Governments shall designate, a senior police  

officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal  

Officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by  

one of the DSP rank officers in the district for taking measures to  

prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They shall  

constitute a special task force so as to procure intelligence  

reports about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or  

who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative  

statements and fake news.  

(ii) The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts,  

Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching and  

mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say, in the  

last five years. The process of identification should be done  

within a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment, as  

such time period is sufficient to get the task done in today's fast  

world of data collection.  

(iii) The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States  

shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers of the  

concerned districts for ensuring that the Officer In-charge of the  

Police Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if any

37    

instance of mob violence within their jurisdiction comes to their  

notice.  

(iv) The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular  

meetings (at least once a month) with the local intelligence units  

in the district along with all Station House Officers of the district  

so as to identify the existence of the tendencies of vigilantism,  

mob violence or lynching in the district and take steps to prohibit  

instances of dissemination of offensive material through different  

social media platforms or any other means for inciting such  

tendencies. The Nodal Officer shall also make efforts to eradicate  

hostile environment against any community or caste which is  

targeted in such incidents.  

(v) The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home  

Department of the concerned States shall take regular review  

meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and  

State Police Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall bring to  

the notice of the DGP any inter-district co-ordination issues for  

devising a strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence related  

issues at the State level.  

(vi) It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to  

disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of CrPC,

38    

which, in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or wreak  

the havoc of lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise.  

(vii) The Home Department of the Government of India must  

take initiative and work in co-ordination with the State  

Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies and by  

involving all the stake holders to identify the measures for  

prevention of mob violence and lynching against any caste or  

community and to implement the constitutional goal of social  

justice and the Rule of Law.  

(viii)   The Director General of Police shall issue a circular to the  

Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling in the  

sensitive areas keeping in view the incidents of the past and the  

intelligence obtained by the office of the Director General. It  

singularly means that there should be seriousness in patrolling  

so that the anti-social elements involved in such crimes are  

discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law thus  

fearing to even think of taking the law into their own hands.    

(ix) The Central and the State Governments should broadcast  

on radio and television and other media platforms including the  

official websites of the Home Department and Police of the States

39    

that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious  

consequence under the law.   

(x) It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well as the  

State Governments to take steps to curb and stop dissemination  

of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other  

material on various social media platforms which have a  

tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.  

(xi) The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A of  

IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against persons who  

disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos  

having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching  

of any kind.  

(xii)   The Central Government shall also issue appropriate  

directions/advisories to the State Governments which would  

reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the  

measures to be taken.   

B.  Remedial Measures  

(i) Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, if  

it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of  

lynching or mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional  

police station shall immediately cause to lodge an FIR, without

40    

any undue delay, under the relevant provisions of IPC and/or  

other provisions of law.  

(ii) It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose  

police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate the  

Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure that there  

is no further harassment of the family members of the victim(s).  

(iii) Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored  

by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure that the  

investigation is carried out effectively and the charge-sheet in  

such cases is filed within the statutory period from the date of  

registration of the FIR or arrest of the accused, as the case may  

be.  

(iv) The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob  

violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the  

provisions of Section 357A of CrPC within one month from the  

date of this judgment. In the said scheme for computation of  

compensation, the State Governments shall give due regard to  

the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of  

earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and  

education and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical  

expenses.  The said compensation scheme must also have a

41    

provision for interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the  

next of kin of the deceased within a period of thirty days of the  

incident of mob violence/lynching.  

(v)  The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically  

tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts earmarked for that  

purpose in each district. Such courts shall hold trial of the case  

on a day to day basis. The trial shall preferably be concluded  

within six months from the date of taking cognizance. We may  

hasten to add that this direction shall apply to even pending  

cases. The District Judge shall assign those cases as far as  

possible to one jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious  

disposal thereof.  It shall be the duty of the State Governments  

and the Nodal Officers in particular to see that the prosecuting  

agency strictly carries out its role in appropriate furtherance of  

the trial.  

(vi) To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and  

lynching, upon conviction of the accused person(s), the trial court  

must ordinarily award maximum sentence as provided for  

various offences under the provisions of the IPC.  

(vii) The courts trying the cases of mob violence and lynching  

may, on application by a witness or by the public prosecutor in

42    

relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such  

measures, as it deems fit, for protection and for concealing the  

identity and address of the witness.  

(viii) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of  

mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice of any  

court proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be heard at the  

trial in respect of applications such as bail, discharge, release  

and parole filed by the accused persons. They shall also have the  

right to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or  

sentencing.  

(ix) The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of  

mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or she  

so chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice from  

amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel under the Legal  

Services Authorities Act, 1987.  

C.  Punitive Measures  

(i) Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of the  

district administration has failed to comply with the aforesaid  

directions in order to prevent and/or investigate and/or facilitate  

expeditious trial of any crime of mob violence and lynching, the  

same shall be considered as an act of deliberate negligence

43    

and/or misconduct for which appropriate action must be taken  

against him/her and not limited to departmental action under  

the service rules. The departmental action shall be taken to its  

logical conclusion preferably within six months by the authority  

of the first instance.  

(ii) In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam Servai v.  

State of Tamil Nadu 21 , the States are directed to take  

disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is found  

that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having  

prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident has already  

occurred, such official(s) did not promptly apprehend and  

institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.   

41. The measures that are directed to be taken have to be  

carried out within four weeks by the Central and the State  

Governments. Reports of compliance be filed within the said  

period before the Registry of this Court.  

42. We may emphatically note that it is axiomatic that it is the  

duty of the State to ensure that the machinery of law and order  

functions efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to  

preserve our quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social  

fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law.  In times of                                                              21  (2011) 6 SCC 405

44    

chaos and anarchy, the State has to act positively and  

responsibly to safeguard and secure the constitutional promises  

to its citizens. 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 the  

recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become  

“the new normal”.  The State cannot turn a deaf ear to the  

growing rumblings of its People, since its concern, to quote  

Woodrow Wilson, “must ring with the voices of the people.”  The  

exigencies of the situation require us to sound a clarion call for  

earnest action to strengthen our inclusive and all-embracing  

social order which would, in turn, reaffirm the constitutional  

faith. We expect nothing more and nothing less.  

43. Apart from the directions we have given hereinbefore and  

what we have expressed, we think it appropriate to recommend to  

the legislature, that is, the Parliament, to create a separate  

offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the  

same.  We have said so as a special law in this field would instill  

a sense of fear for law amongst the people who involve themselves  

in such kinds of activities. There can be no trace of doubt that

45    

fear of law and veneration for the command of law constitute the  

foundation of a civilized society.  

44. Let the matters be listed on 20th August, 2018 for further  

directions.  

 ……………………….....CJI.             (Dipak Misra)                ………………………….….J.  

                       (A.M. Khanwilkar)                        ……………………………..J.           (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud)   New Delhi;  July 17, 2018