- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Ayub K. Nongkynrih v. State Of Meghalaya And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns the lack of instructions from the State respondents regarding the formulation and implementation of a compensation scheme for victims of mob or lynching violence. Despite repeated requests by the learned Government Advocate for the State respondents, no guidance or instructions have been provided. The Court references a relevant Supreme Court judgment directing the formulation of such compensation schemes and expeditious trial of related cases.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State respondents have complied with the Supreme Court’s directions to formulate a compensation scheme for victims of mob/lynching violence under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The procedural steps to be taken in the absence of instructions from the State regarding the compensation scheme.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501 | Directions for State Governments to prepare a compensation scheme for victims of lynching/mob violence under Section 357A CrPC; directions for expeditious trial by designated courts. | The Court relied on this precedent to emphasize the mandatory nature of the compensation scheme and the requirement for prompt trial, highlighting the absence of compliance by the State respondents in the instant case. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted the failure of the State respondents to provide instructions despite repeated requests. It referred to the Supreme Court’s binding directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla regarding the formulation of a compensation scheme and the expeditious trial of mob/lynching cases. The Court underscored the importance of these directives and, in light of the absence of compliance, directed the Secretary of the Home (Police) Department to appear in Court to explain the status and further steps. This procedural direction aims to ensure adherence to the Supreme Court’s mandate and to facilitate progress in the matter.
Holding and Implications
The Court ordered the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Shillong to appear in Court on 15.03.2021 to provide an update on the compensation scheme and related measures.
The direct effect of this order is to compel the State administration to respond to the Court’s concerns regarding non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. No broader precedent was established by this order; it functions as a procedural step to ensure enforcement of existing legal mandates.
H.S. Thangkhiew, J.:— Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA for the State respondents submits that inspite of repeated requests for instructions as to the compensation scheme for victims of mob/lynching violence, no instructions have been forthcoming.
2. Mention may be made that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India reported in (2018) 9 SCC 501, wherein directions have been issued for the formulation of Compensation Scheme, is relevant in the instant case, an extract of which is quoted herein below:
“40.16. 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 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/lynching.
40.17. 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.”
3. Accordingly, on the absence of any instructions, the Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Shillong is directed to be present in Court on 15.03.2021, to apprise the Court in the instant matter.
4. List accordingly.
5. Copy of this order be also forwarded to the Secretary, Home (Police) Department.
Alert