Gauhati High Court Criticizes Mizoram Police for Press Release Leading to Mob Violence
In a recent ruling, the Gauhati High Court has reprimanded Mizoram authorities for issuing a police press release that compromised an active murder investigation and provoked mob violence against the family of a suspect. This judicial intervention came during proceedings in the case C Laltanpuii v The State of Mizoram & Ors.
On August 27, Justice Rajesh Mazumdar declared that the press release, disseminated by the Mizoram Police on January 27, contravened the guidelines outlined in the Police Manual for Media Briefing. The High Court’s order mandates the immediate withdrawal of the press release, underlining, “The impugned press release is declared to violate the protocol laid down in the Police Manual for media briefing. The authority who had issued the aforesaid press release shall cause the same to be recalled forthwith and in any case, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
Details of the Case
The case involves the tragic death of a young woman whose body was discovered near a football field in December 2025. The investigation pointed to the petitioner’s husband as a suspect, who later died under suspicious circumstances. The police’s January press release named the deceased husband as the primary suspect and included sensitive details from the investigation, such as suspected bloodstains, call records, forensic evidence, and personal information about the victim, including her pregnancy status.
The Court found these disclosures exceeded what is permissible under the Police Manual, thereby potentially inciting public unrest. In its observations, the Court noted that, “This disclosure had admittedly and obviously led to public outrage and mob violence.”
Consequences of the Press Release
Following the press release, local organizations issued notices banning the petitioner’s family from residing in their area. Subsequently, a mob attacked the family’s residence, causing significant damage, including setting ablaze a scooter and construction materials.
The State informed the Court about a suo motu FIR registered on January 29, identifying several individuals involved in the violence. However, arrests were hindered due to the volatile situation and the police being outnumbered. The Court criticized this stance, stating, “The irony we notice in this case is that the respondents, in their affidavit, have tried to justify the failure to afford protection to the property of the petitioner and her family by stating that the police personnel were heavily outnumbered; however, no indication has been given as to the steps which were initiated or attempted to be taken for affording protection.”
Judicial Directions
The Court emphasized adherence to the Supreme Court’s guidelines on preventing and investigating mob violence as outlined in Tehseen S Poonawalla v Union of India. It ordered the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police to monitor the investigation weekly and warned of consequences for any negligence in handling the case. The Court called for the circulation of the Police Manual for Media Briefing to ensure compliance across police stations.
Moreover, the Court appointed Additional District and Sessions Judge Lalngaihmawia Zote as the Claims Commissioner to evaluate the petitioner’s claim for ₹7,61,130 in damages, with a report due within three months. The Court will consider these findings before determining the compensation owed.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on December 4. Advocate J C Lalnunsanga represented the petitioner, while Government advocate Lalnunhlui Ralte appeared for the State of Mizoram and its police authorities. Advocate Robert Laltlana represented the local council chairman and representatives of the three local organizations involved.
