Podcast – Cow Vigilantism Case (Tehseen Poonawalla v UOI)

September 6, 2017 |

We have produced a podcast on the hearings on Day 5 of the ongoing Cow Vigilantism case, which can be accessed here.


Podcast Transcript on Cow Vigilantism case (Day 5 Arguments)


Good Evening, This Podcast is recorded on 22nd September 2017. This is Kruthika from Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore.


In 2017 CLPR set up Supreme Court Observer to track high impactful cases. SCO is non-partisan effort to make the work of Supreme Court intelligible and easily accessible to anyone interested in Indian public affairs. The website link is scobserver@clpr.org.in.


Today, we have Satya who is tracking the Tehseen Poonawalla v UOI case which relates to the menace of Cow Vigilantism and State’s responsibility to curb it.  We have introduction and background to this case posted in SCObserver website. This podcast will track today’s proceedings of this case.


What was today’s hearing all about?


Today,  Indira Jaising, representing Tushar Gandhi, one of the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court that despite the court asking all States to file Compliance Report only 5 States have done so. With only 5 States, submitting Compliance Report, The Chief Justice asked all States to file their compliance report before 13th October.


Indira Jaising, also raised the issue of the abysmal state of Victim compensation scheme by referring to the unfortunate state of Junaid’s family. Junaid, a 16 year old Muslim boy was killed by a mob in a train compartment simply on the suspicion of being a “beef eater”. Indira Jaising brought to the Court’s notice that Junaid’s father is yet to receive any state support despite there being a statutory Victim Compensation Scheme. The bench responded that all  States are obligated to compensate victims of cow vigilantism…


Indira Jaising also informed the bench that she has prepared a memo which examines the scope of “Co-operative Federalism” and Centre’s power to direct States under Art 256 and she would like to place it before the judiciary. This was in response to Centre’s plea in previous hearings that as “law and order” is a State subject, so Centre does not have power under the Constitution to direct State on law and order issue.


 What were the other arguments made today?


Towards the end of day’s proceeding, Kapil Sibal, representing Tehseen Poonawala requested the bench to broaden the ambit of Compliance report by also include the investigation report into cow-vigilante cases. He told the court that while the perpetrators of violence in the name of protecting cows were on bail, the victims faced FIRs and persecution. However, the bench declined this request to broaden the scope of compliance report at this stage and posted the matter for 31st  October, 2017.


Thanks, Satya. We will follow this podcast with a detailed written summary of proceedings on the SCObserver website. Thank you all for listening.


Follow us on Facebook at Supreme Court Observer and on twitter @SCObserver for more updates.