The Evening Wrap: Anti-mob lynching bills passed by 4 Assemblies

Anti-mob lynching bills passed by at least three Opposition-ruled States and one BJP-ruled State in the past four years are caught up in various levels of non-implementation, with the Union government taking a view that lynching is not defined as a crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) informed Parliament in 2019 that there was “no separate” definition for incidents of lynching under the IPC, adding that lynching incidents could be dealt with under Sections 300 and 302 of IPC, pertaining to murder. In 2017, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) collected data on mob lynching, hate crimes and cow vigilantism but it was not published and discontinued as these crimes are not defined and the data was found to be unreliable. On December 22, the Jharkhand Assembly passed the Prevention of Mob Violence and Mob Lynching Bill, 2021, providing for punishment from three years to life imprisonment. The Bill awaits the Governor’s nod. On August 5, 2019, the Rajasthan Assembly passed the Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill, 2019, providing for life imprisonment and a fine from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh to those convicted in cases of mob lynching leading to the victim’s death. On August 30, 2019, the West Bengal Assembly passed a legislation, the West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019 that proposes a jail term from three years to life for those involved in assaulting and injuring a person and also defines terms such as “lynching” and “mob.” The government also proposed the West Bengal Lynching Compensation Scheme. In response to a Right to Information Act (RTI) application by The Hindu, the MHA stated that the said legislation was received from the Rajasthan government on September 6, 2019. It added that the bill was “under inter-ministerial consultation with State Government/Union Ministries/ Departments.” The MHA’s reply stated, “However, the bill ie: The West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019’ has not been received from West Bengal Government.” In 2018, the Manipur Assembly passed the The Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Bill, recommending life imprisonment for those involved in mob violence if it led to death. The bill is still being examined by the Ministry. The Ministry examines the State legislations on three grounds: repugnancy with Central laws, deviation from national or central policy, and legal and constitutional validity. In 2019, the MHA informed the Lok Sabha that it had received the bills passed by the State legislatures of Manipur and Rajasthan that have been reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President. The President has to go with the advice given by the Council of Ministers, in the case of such legislations, represented by the MHA. In 2018, the Supreme Court asked Parliament to make lynching a separate offence. Union Home Minister Amit Shah had informed Parliament that the government has decided to overhaul the IPC framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and mob-lynching would also be examined by the committee. The suggestions received by the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws would be examined by the Ministry before the changes are adopted. In 2018, the Supreme Court asked Parliament to make lynching a separate offence. Union Home Minister Amit Shah had informed Parliament that the government has decided to overhaul the IPC framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and mob-lynching would also be examined by the committee. The suggestions received by the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws would be examined by the Ministry before the changes are adopted. OIC Secretariat has ‘communal mindset’, says India India on Tuesday hit out at the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), saying it was “hijacked by vested interests”. Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs Arindam Bagchi made the remark after the OIC commented about the hijab controversy currently raging in Karnataka. “Issues in India are considered and resolved in accordance with our constitutional framework and mechanisms, as well as democratic ethos and polity. The communal mindset of the OIC Secretariat does not allow for a proper appreciation of these realities,” Bagchi stated. “OIC continues to be hijacked by vested interests to further their nefarious propaganda against India,” he said. A day before, the OIC called upon the U.N. and the Human Rights Council to take “necessary measures” following reports of Muslim students being prevented from wearing hijab in Karnataka. “The OIC General Secretariat further urges once again India to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of the Muslim community while protecting the way of life of its members and to bring the instigators and perpetrators of acts of violence and hate crimes against them to justice,” it said in a statement. Pakistan, a leading member of the OIC, had criticised the developments in Karnataka. Its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had termed the developments attempts at ghettoisation. A day before, the OIC called upon the U.N. and the Human Rights Council to take “necessary measures” following reports of Muslim students being prevented from wearing hijab in Karnataka. “The OIC General Secretariat further urges once again India to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of the Muslim community while protecting the way of life of its members and to bring the instigators and perpetrators of acts of violence and hate crimes against them to justice,” it said in a statement. Pakistan, a leading member of the OIC, had criticised the developments in Karnataka. Its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had termed the developments attempts at ghettoisation. Indian students should leave Ukraine, says Indian Embassy advisory All Indian students should leave Ukraine in view of the escalating military tension with Russia, Embassy of India in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv has said in an advisory. It was issued hours after the U.S. govt spokespersons said that Russia was expected to invade Ukraine on February 16. “In view of the uncertainties of the current situation in Ukraine, Indian nationals in Ukraine, particularly students whose stay is not essential may consider leaving temporarily,” said the Embassy in a public notice on Tuesday urging Indian nationals to avoid all non-essential travel to and within the country. The Embassy also urged Indian nationals to keep the mission informed about their location so that they could be contacted in case “required”. The Hindu had earlier reported that the embassy was in the process of collecting contact details of all Indian students and professionals based in Ukraine. Ukraine has approximately 16,000 Indian students who are studying in various courses in medical colleges there. That apart, there is a small Indian community in the country. According to media reports, Russian military has encircled Ukraine from the east in Donbas and the South along the Black Sea coast. In the north, Russia is conducting a military drill with Belarus. Supreme Court studies if Vanniyar quota pleas need to be referred to larger Bench The Supreme Court on Tuesday began examining whether petitions challenging a Madras High Court decision declaring ultra vires a State quota law, which provided 10.5% special reservation to Vanniyars, a most backward community, ought to be referred to a larger Bench. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai heard submissions on the question of reference. “We want to first hear submissions on the issue of reference. If we feel that the matter can be decided here without referring it to a larger Bench, we can decide it here,” Justice Rao said at one point. Several senior lawyers submitted that the case involved constitutional issues and would require a dive into the 102nd and 105th Constitutional Amendments. The 102nd Amendment Act of 2018 gave the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) constitutional validity. It allowed the President to notify the list of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) for any State or union territory. However, the subsequent 105th Constitutional Amendment restored the power to identify and specify SEBCs to the States. A dozen special leave petitions have been filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which have filed multiple pleas; the Pattali Makkal Katchi party; K. Balu, etc. Senior advocates, including Rajeev Dhawan, A.M. Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, C.S. Vaidyanathan, P. Wilson and Gopal Sankaranarayan and advocates D. Kumanan, Varun K. Chopra and Nishe Rajen Shonker are appearing in the case. Averments were made to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institution and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act. This law led to 69% reservation in the State. The Act was brought under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Article 31B of the Constitution states that none of the Acts that are included under the Ninth Schedule “shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void... notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary”. The State government has argued that the Madras High Court order was based on an erroneous view that State had no legislative competence and the special reservation was provided with caste as basis and without quantifiable data. The government said Tamil Nadu had been a “pioneer State with regard to grant of reservation”. “The Most Backward Classes within the Backward Classes were identified in Tamil Nadu as early as in 1957, when they were considered equivalent to Scheduled Castes but without the factor of untouchability,” the petition explained. It stated that some of these communities were impacted by the criminal tribes’ laws of the British and enlisted as Most Backward Classes. The recommendation for 10.5% reservation to the Vanniyakula Kshatriya was made in commensuration with their population as enumerated in a survey held in 1983 by the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission. J&K leaders irked by deletion of Assembly seats named after historical figures From Gandhi Nagar in Jammu to Habba Kadal in Kashmir, the J&K Delimitation Commission’s proposal to delete the names of 19 Assembly constituencies, including those with historically important names, has infuriated the regional leaders in the Union Territory (UT), who described it as “an assault on J&K’s history”. Shameema Firdous, a three–time MLA from Srinagar’s Habba Kadal constituency, said she was anguished to see the name of Habba Kadal removed in the Commission draft proposal and merged into three other constituencies. “It’s a fact that Habba Khatoon was a revered queen and poetess from Kashmir, and wife of Kashmiri king Yousuf Shah Chak. The constituency was named after her. She represented Kashmir’s culture, tradition and literature. Removing her name is an open assault on our history and an attempt to decimate our collective sense of past. It seems there is a move to take our new generation away from the icons of Kashmir by renaming these constituencies,” Firdous told The Hindu. Another prominent name removed from Srinagar is Amira Kadal, named after Afghan governor Amir Khan Jawan Sher who built the iconic Shergari Fort and restored the Sona Lank canal and set up an irrigation system in place. The National Conference, in its formal response to the delimitation panel on Monday, also highlighted the removal of the name of the Amir Kadal constituency, and termed it as “an attempt to obliterate history”. Qazigund, also known as the Gateway of Kashmir and home to the Valley’s first tunnel named after Jawaharlal Nehru, has also been removed from the electoral map. In Jammu, there is anger over the removal of the name of Gandhiji. “The BJP is not able to tolerate the icons followed by the Congress party. It was no surprise that a constituency named Gandhi Nagar was removed and instead named as Jammu East, Jammu West, etc. Similarly, Gulabgarh named after Dogra Maharaja Gulab Singh, who founded the state of J&K, has been removed. The delimitation exercise is faulty to the extent that it has put a tail where the head should be,” Mission Statehood president Sunil Dimple said. Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The number of reported coronavirus cases from India stood at 4,26,82,913 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 5,08,943. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. [logo] The Evening Wrap 15 FEBRUARY 2022 [The Hindu logo] Welcome to the Evening Wrap newsletter, your guide to the day’s biggest stories with concise analysis from The Hindu. [[Arrow]Open in browser]( [[Mail icon]More newsletters]( Anti-mob lynching bills passed by 4 Assemblies at various levels of non-implementation [Anti-mob lynching bills passed by at least three Opposition-ruled States]( and one BJP-ruled State in the past four years are caught up in various levels of non-implementation, with the Union government taking a view that lynching is not defined as a crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) informed Parliament in 2019 that there was “no separate” definition for incidents of lynching under the IPC, adding that lynching incidents could be dealt with under Sections 300 and 302 of IPC, pertaining to murder. In 2017, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) collected data on mob lynching, hate crimes and cow vigilantism but it was not published and discontinued as these crimes are not defined and the data was found to be unreliable. On December 22, the Jharkhand Assembly passed the Prevention of Mob Violence and Mob Lynching Bill, 2021, providing for punishment from three years to life imprisonment. The Bill awaits the Governor’s nod. On August 5, 2019, the Rajasthan Assembly passed the Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill, 2019, providing for life imprisonment and a fine from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh to those convicted in cases of mob lynching leading to the victim’s death. On August 30, 2019, the West Bengal Assembly passed a legislation, the West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019 that proposes a jail term from three years to life for those involved in assaulting and injuring a person and also defines terms such as “lynching” and “mob.” The government also proposed the West Bengal Lynching Compensation Scheme. In response to a Right to Information Act (RTI) application by The Hindu, the MHA stated that the said legislation was received from the Rajasthan government on September 6, 2019. It added that the bill was “under inter-ministerial consultation with State Government/Union Ministries/ Departments.” The MHA’s reply stated, “However, the bill ie: The West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019’ has not been received from West Bengal Government.” In 2018, the Manipur Assembly passed the The Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Bill, recommending life imprisonment for those involved in mob violence if it led to death. The bill is still being examined by the Ministry. The Ministry examines the State legislations on three grounds: repugnancy with Central laws, deviation from national or central policy, and legal and constitutional validity. In 2019, the MHA informed the Lok Sabha that it had received the bills passed by the State legislatures of Manipur and Rajasthan that have been reserved by the Governor for consideration of the President. The President has to go with the advice given by the Council of Ministers, in the case of such legislations, represented by the MHA. In 2018, the Supreme Court asked Parliament to make lynching a separate offence. Union Home Minister Amit Shah had informed Parliament that the government has decided to overhaul the IPC framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and mob-lynching would also be examined by the committee. The suggestions received by the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws would be examined by the Ministry before the changes are adopted. In 2018, the Supreme Court asked Parliament to make lynching a separate offence. Union Home Minister Amit Shah had informed Parliament that the government has decided to overhaul the IPC framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and mob-lynching would also be examined by the committee. The suggestions received by the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws would be examined by the Ministry before the changes are adopted. OIC Secretariat has ‘communal mindset’, says India India on Tuesday hit out at the [Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),]( saying it was “hijacked by vested interests”. Official Spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs Arindam Bagchi made the remark after the OIC commented about the hijab controversy currently raging in Karnataka. “Issues in India are considered and resolved in accordance with our constitutional framework and mechanisms, as well as democratic ethos and polity. The communal mindset of the OIC Secretariat does not allow for a proper appreciation of these realities,” Bagchi stated. “OIC continues to be hijacked by vested interests to further their nefarious propaganda against India,” he said. A day before, the OIC called upon the U.N. and the Human Rights Council to take “necessary measures” following reports of Muslim students being prevented from wearing hijab in Karnataka. “The OIC General Secretariat further urges once again India to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of the Muslim community while protecting the way of life of its members and to bring the instigators and perpetrators of acts of violence and hate crimes against them to justice,” it said in a statement. Pakistan, a leading member of the OIC, had criticised the developments in Karnataka. Its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had termed the developments attempts at ghettoisation. A day before, the OIC called upon the U.N. and the Human Rights Council to take “necessary measures” following reports of Muslim students being prevented from wearing hijab in Karnataka. “The OIC General Secretariat further urges once again India to ensure the safety, security and wellbeing of the Muslim community while protecting the way of life of its members and to bring the instigators and perpetrators of acts of violence and hate crimes against them to justice,” it said in a statement. Pakistan, a leading member of the OIC, had criticised the developments in Karnataka. Its Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had termed the developments attempts at ghettoisation. Indian students should leave Ukraine, says Indian Embassy advisory All [Indian students should leave Ukraine in view of the escalating military tension with Russia,]( Embassy of India in Ukraine’s capital Kyiv has said in an advisory. It was issued hours after the U.S. govt spokespersons said that [Russia was expected to invade Ukraine]( February 16. “In view of the uncertainties of the current situation in Ukraine, Indian nationals in Ukraine, particularly students whose stay is not essential may consider leaving temporarily,” said the Embassy in a public notice on Tuesday urging Indian nationals to avoid all non-essential travel to and within the country. [In this photo taken from video provided by the Russian Defense Ministry Press Service, Russian armored vehicles are loaded onto railway platforms after the end of military drills in South Russia. In what could be another sign that the Kremlin would like to lower the temperature, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced Tuesday that some units participating in military exercises would begin returning to their bases.] The Embassy also urged Indian nationals to keep the mission informed about their location so that they could be contacted in case “required”. The Hindu had earlier reported that the embassy was in the process of collecting contact details of all Indian students and professionals based in Ukraine. Ukraine has approximately 16,000 Indian students who are studying in various courses in medical colleges there. That apart, there is a small Indian community in the country. According to media reports, Russian military has encircled Ukraine from the east in Donbas and the South along the Black Sea coast. In the north, Russia is conducting a military drill with Belarus. Supreme Court studies if Vanniyar quota pleas need to be referred to larger Bench The [Supreme Court on Tuesday began examining whether petitions challenging a Madras High Court decision]( declaring ultra vires a State quota law, which provided 10.5% special reservation to Vanniyars, a most backward community, ought to be referred to a larger Bench. A Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai heard submissions on the question of reference. “We want to first hear submissions on the issue of reference. If we feel that the matter can be decided here without referring it to a larger Bench, we can decide it here,” Justice Rao said at one point. Several senior lawyers submitted that the case involved constitutional issues and would require a dive into the 102nd and 105th Constitutional Amendments. The 102nd Amendment Act of 2018 gave the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC) constitutional validity. It allowed the President to notify the list of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBC) for any State or union territory. However, the subsequent 105th Constitutional Amendment restored the power to identify and specify SEBCs to the States. A dozen special leave petitions have been filed by the Tamil Nadu government, which have filed multiple pleas; the Pattali Makkal Katchi party; K. Balu, etc. Senior advocates, including Rajeev Dhawan, A.M. Singhvi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Mukul Rohatgi, C.S. Vaidyanathan, P. Wilson and Gopal Sankaranarayan and advocates D. Kumanan, Varun K. Chopra and Nishe Rajen Shonker are appearing in the case. Averments were made to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institution and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act. This law led to 69% reservation in the State. The Act was brought under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Article 31B of the Constitution states that none of the Acts that are included under the Ninth Schedule “shall be deemed to be void, or ever to have become void... notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary”. The State government has argued that the Madras High Court order was based on an erroneous view that State had no legislative competence and the special reservation was provided with caste as basis and without quantifiable data. The government said Tamil Nadu had been a “pioneer State with regard to grant of reservation”. “The Most Backward Classes within the Backward Classes were identified in Tamil Nadu as early as in 1957, when they were considered equivalent to Scheduled Castes but without the factor of untouchability,” the petition explained. It stated that some of these communities were impacted by the criminal tribes’ laws of the British and enlisted as Most Backward Classes. The recommendation for 10.5% reservation to the Vanniyakula Kshatriya was made in commensuration with their population as enumerated in a survey held in 1983 by the Tamil Nadu Second Backward Classes Commission. J&K leaders irked by deletion of Assembly seats named after historical figures From Gandhi Nagar in Jammu to Habba Kadal in Kashmir, the [J&K Delimitation Commission’s proposal to delete the names]( of 19 Assembly constituencies, including those with historically important names, has infuriated the regional leaders in the Union Territory (UT), who described it as “an assault on J&K’s history”. Shameema Firdous, a three–time MLA from Srinagar’s Habba Kadal constituency, said she was anguished to see the name of Habba Kadal removed in the Commission draft proposal and merged into three other constituencies. “It’s a fact that Habba Khatoon was a revered queen and poetess from Kashmir, and wife of Kashmiri king Yousuf Shah Chak. The constituency was named after her. She represented Kashmir’s culture, tradition and literature. Removing her name is an open assault on our history and an attempt to decimate our collective sense of past. It seems there is a move to take our new generation away from the icons of Kashmir by renaming these constituencies,” Firdous told The Hindu. Another prominent name removed from Srinagar is Amira Kadal, named after Afghan governor Amir Khan Jawan Sher who built the iconic Shergari Fort and restored the Sona Lank canal and set up an irrigation system in place. The National Conference, in its formal response to the delimitation panel on Monday, also highlighted the removal of the name of the Amir Kadal constituency, and termed it as “an attempt to obliterate history”. Qazigund, also known as the Gateway of Kashmir and home to the Valley’s first tunnel named after Jawaharlal Nehru, has also been removed from the electoral map. In Jammu, there is anger over the removal of the name of Gandhiji. “The BJP is not able to tolerate the icons followed by the Congress party. It was no surprise that a constituency named Gandhi Nagar was removed and instead named as Jammu East, Jammu West, etc. Similarly, Gulabgarh named after Dogra Maharaja Gulab Singh, who founded the state of J&K, has been removed. The delimitation exercise is faulty to the extent that it has put a tail where the head should be,” Mission Statehood president Sunil Dimple said. Covid Watch: Numbers and Developments The[number of reported coronavirus cases from India]( stood at 4,26,82,913 at the time of publishing this newsletter, with the death toll at 5,08,943. Evening Wrap will return tomorrow. Today‘s Top Picks [[What drives the business of IPL auctions? | In Focus podcast] What drives the business of IPL auctions? | In Focus podcast]( [[Watch | Why are India’s imports from China rising?] Watch | Why are India’s imports from China rising?]( [[Analysis | Is a Russian attack on Ukraine imminent?] Analysis | Is a Russian attack on Ukraine imminent?]( [[Moving up, Mirabai Chanu ready for bigger challenges] Moving up, Mirabai Chanu ready for bigger challenges]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](