Pauliansaun Touthang, MA
New Delhi
What do we understand by the term mob justice? Mob justice can be defined as an action where a large or an angry crowd tried to give justice by themselves with very bad consequences. There can be many reasons for mob justice. However, the explanation behind these actions is not justified by rational legal frames. The reason for irrationality is due to the mob mentality as people can be influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviors on a largely emotional, rather than rational, basis.
Often mob justice is understood as mob lynching, mob violence etc. But the concept of mob justice is not limited to the physical act of violence the mob. It actually originates from the minds and can be seen through the act of violence or the use of words in social media. This is one of the areas which many of the medias and news channel are using in order to infuse a certain idea or form a certain opinion into the minds of the people.
Mob justice in the form of violent actions are often seen and heard. The government too had taken various steps to curb the incidents of mob violence. In 2018, the Supreme Court described lynching as a “horrendous act of mobocracy”. The Court exhorted the Centre and State governments to frame laws specifically to deal with the crime of lynching. The Court also laid down certain guidelines to be incorporated in these laws including fast-track trials, compensation to victims, and disciplinary action against lax law-enforcers. The Manipur government came up first with its Bill against lynching in 2018. Many of the provisions and clauses are directions to the police in order to tackle the issue of mob violence.
One of the main psychological factors behind mob justice is Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utilitarian moral theory. The main principle of utilitarian moral theory, the principle of utility, states that “the right action is the one that produces the most overall happiness”.And the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation. Based on this whether the action of the mob is legally right or wrong as long as it produces overall psychological happiness of the maximum people, there is a tendency to feel that it is right.
The grave problem with the mob justice is not only in the violent act itself. Many a times the victims of the mob violence turn up innocent. Many end up losing their lives. The very reason of mob justice, i.e., to deliver justice becomes an injustice to many innocent lives. These mob injustices are even more prone in social media mob justice. During the olden days’ life was at a slower pace. We had time to give things more thought before we share it to someone else. But with the development in communications technology through social media, people tend to react quicker with their emotions.Social media is a great tool, but with great power comes great responsibility. Whether we are supported or not, it is easy to say in social media that we all hate racists, homophobes and bullies. But, sometimes, lives have been ruined, literally in a matter of seconds, by those who have been wrongfully accused of misdeeds on social media.
Shame is not a new social tactic.Shame isn’t bad in and of itself. It’s how we wield it that counts. It’s how outrage culture can spin almost any story, even factually incorrect ones, into a terrible force. What about truly innocent people, who were misidentified or misrepresented, only to have the internet mob grab their metaphorical pitchforks and chase after them? The goal of online shaming is only to destroy the person.
This collection of naysayers may be completely well-intentioned, but could be making decisions and forming opinions based on irrational thought. Once this groupthink sets in, an “us versus them” attitude can dominate any discussion. When members of the group don’t want to dissent for fear of rejection, the mob mentality will prevail.When people have formed an opinion about something, it can be very hard for them to change their minds. Our own personal biases, feelings and even life circumstances can have a major impact on how we process information.
In the case of MPSC 2016 some group of MPSC aspirants came up with the idea of a better and transparent MPSC. Prima facie the concept is charismatic and enchanting for the general public. It is in sync with the rise in the contemporary anti-corruption movements across the globe. Since almost everyone had, atleast once,been a victim of corruption, the goal of achieving a transparent and corruption free MPSC was captivating. And people gets driven by emotions in support of the cause.
Many of the irregularities in the conduct of MPSC was highlighted. Cropped images of answer scripts were widely circulated in social media as well as in print medias. This made the general public to form an opinion that ‘there are illegalities’ in the exam. And since MPSC being an organization, with officers who are posted or deputed temporarily and with the ‘…not during my tenure’ attitude, was not affected much with all these allegations. Or, may be it was a ploy by some aspirants, not to rub the MPSC on the wrong side, so that they will not bear the consequences during the re-examinations or interviews.So, the social media activists had to find someone else to prey upon. With this the selected 82 candidates who were serving as officers in the government became the soft target of the social media activist. Since the 82 serving officers were bounded by various government rules and guidelines against the use of media, they became the most suitable punching bag for the social media mob. Without any concrete evidences they were publicly shamed and tagged as ‘Huranba 82’, ‘corrupt officers’, ‘thieves’ etc. The truth that they may have got the job through illegal means or they may be innocent, is the job of the CBI to find out.But, what was the point of social media shaming and calling names just to gain support of the social media mob? Is it a social media justice or social media injustice?The presumption of innocence which is a is the legal principle that one is considered “innocent until proven guilty”, is gravely violated in such cases.
Nevertheless, it is only the CBI investigation which the 82 terminated officers which can bring justice before the whole world, so that any innocent terminated officer can move on with their lives without such social perceptions. Irreparable damages may had been caused by then. Their lives, careers and dignity would have been destroyed. But better late the never it is hoped that the CBI and the Court will one day deliver justice to all the innocent candidates. And let’s just hope that no innocent person, in future, falls victim to the same blunt weapon for no reason other than bad luck.
