Author: Ifrah Fatima, Aligarh Muslim University
To the point
It rarely begins with a weapon. It begins with a whisper. Sometimes it’s the silence of a street that should’ve stepped in. And somewhere in between, between a name shouted and a blow landed another citizen becomes a statistic. Over the past few years, something far more terrifying than hate has grown in India: collective silence and communal permission. The kind of violence that doesn’t just happen, it’s allowed. When mobs gather in the name of “cow protection” or “honour” or “national pride,” it’s not law they carry in their hands. Its rage dressed as righteousness. And more often than not, the person at the receiving end is a Muslim man who has been accused, judged, and executed by a crowd before a court can even read his name.
In a country governed by the rule of law, justice is meant to be delivered in courtrooms not on streets by angry crowds. What makes this crisis even more alarming is the pattern of targets: overwhelmingly, the victims belong to the Muslim community. Under the guise of cow protection, religious insult, or mere suspicion, men have been dragged from trains, tied to trees, and beaten to death. The weapon may change into a stick, a belt, a slogan but the motive remains chillingly familiar: hate legitimized by herd.
Despite repeated Supreme Court directives and public outcry, the machinery of law seems paralysed. FIRs are often delayed, charges diluted, and in many cases, accused walk free while victims’ families are left to fight stigma and fear. Instead of acting as a shield, the state’s silence often acts as an enabler.
Use of legal jargon
Mob violence, though not defined as a specific offence in earlier Indian laws, is punishable under various existing provisions. When a group of individuals comes together to harm someone, especially on grounds like religion or suspicion of a crime, it legally falls under the idea of unlawful assembly and rioting, previously covered under Sections 141 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now continued in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) , 2023 under equivalent section 191 rioting and 188 unlawful assembly.
In most lynching cases, the victim dies due to the violence inflicted by the mob. Ideally, this should be charged under Section 302 IPC / Section 101 BNS, which deals with murder. However, in several instances, the charges are diluted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 IPC), resulting in less severe punishments. This has been a consistent concern in cases like the lynching of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand.
When the violence is driven by religious hatred, as it has been in multiple mob lynching cases involving Muslims, Section 153A IPC / Section 194 BNS becomes relevant. This section deals with promoting enmity between different groups on the basis of religion, race, or language, and aims to prevent hate-fuelled violence.
The Supreme Court, in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), recognised lynching as a serious challenge to the rule of law. The Court issued guidelines asking states to appoint Nodal Officers in every district to monitor and prevent mob violence, register FIRs promptly, and ensure fast-track trials. These directions are enforceable under Article 141 of the Constitution, which makes Supreme Court rulings binding across the country.
Additionally, the Court recommended that victim compensation be provided under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) now Section 396 under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which lays down the framework for financial assistance to victims or their families in criminal cases.
In the BNS, which replaced the IPC in 2023, Section 103 introduces mob lynching as a specific offence, acknowledging the need for a clearer legal response. However, how effectively this provision is applied in real cases remains to be seen.
To summarise, the legal tools to address mob violence do exist. But gaps in enforcement, inconsistent charges, and poor follow-through have limited their impact in practice.
The proof
With the rising hatred in the country, cases of mob lynching have been normalized to the extent that they are treated as casually as the killing of an insect. With the most recent case of Tuesday June 17 2025 when a man named Junaid was beaten leaving him barely alive by the cow vigilantes in Madhya Pradesh as he was alleged of transporting six cows. The man was later declared death by succumbing to his injuries. The man worked as a labour and even if he was walking with the cows, he should’ve been properly introspected instead of getting killed by a mob.
Another incident dated may 29, 2025 a news of Aligarh where 4 men were brutally beaten up on the suspicion of transporting beef turns out to be not at all cow’s meat. Meanwhile with the physical damage the mini struck carrying meat was also set on fire.
June 2024 – Anand, Gujarat: Salman Vohra, 23, was killed during a local cricket match after a communal dispute turned violent. Eyewitnesses reported that religious slogans were used during the assault.
June 2024 – Kolkata, West Bengal: Irshad Alam, a daily wage worker, was tied up and assaulted on suspicion of theft. He died from his injuries. A separate incident in the Salt Lake area the next day involved a similar pattern.
July 2024 – Koderma, Jharkhand: A local cleric, Maulana Sahabuddin, was beaten following a road accident. The case attracted local protests but no arrests were made immediately.
August 2024 – Charkhi Dadri, Haryana: A migrant worker, Sabir Malik, was lynched after being accused of carrying beef. No meat was found on him at the time of the incident.
According to reports compiled by multiple human rights networks, including Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind and civil society tracking platforms, more than a dozen lynching and communal mob attacks occurred across Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat, West Bengal, and Haryana between mid-2024 and early 2025. Most incidents shared a similar structure: communal provocation, mob involvement, and limited police accountability.
Case Laws
The most prominent case in this context is Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018). In this judgment, the Supreme Court declared that “mobocracy cannot be allowed to become the new normal.” The Court issued a series of binding directions to all states and Union Territories. These included appointing a nodal police officer in every district to monitor mob violence, ensuring fast-track trials within six months, and granting compensation to victims’ families through Section 357A of the CrPC. The Court also called for police accountability and regular district-level reviews. Despite being binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, many of these directions have seen poor or inconsistent implementation.
Another relevant judgment is Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018). While this case dealt primarily with honour killings, the Court’s reasoning extended to all forms of violence based on identity and social prejudice. It emphasised the importance of preventive measures, such as local surveillance units, community-level awareness, and swift administrative response to incidents of targeted violence. This case strengthened the broader legal framework against group-based hate crimes.
In the Tabrez Ansari case from Jharkhand (2019), the role of judicial observation also played a part. Though not a Supreme Court ruling, reports submitted by organisations like the National Campaign Against Torture (NCAT) brought attention to custodial negligence. Tabrez was tied to a pole, beaten for hours, and then taken into police custody without proper medical attention. These facts reached the courts through petitions and human rights reports, leading to a reassessment of the initial police charges. The murder charges, which were initially dropped, were reinstated after public pressure and legal intervention.
In recent years, several High Courts have addressed specific mob lynching incidents. For example, in 2023–24, the Jharkhand High Court criticised the handling of the Tabrez Ansari case, particularly the downgrading of charges. In 2025, the Bombay High Court, during hearings related to communal riots, reiterated that mob violence undermines constitutional order, regardless of the religion of the victim or accused. Similarly, the Allahabad High Court, in a 2024 case from Bareilly, ordered an SIT probe into a lynching incident, noting serious lapses in police response and prosecution.
Despite judicial efforts, India still lacks a dedicated national law on lynching. Over the years, private members of Parliament have introduced drafts like the Protection from Lynching Act (most recently in 2022 and 2024), but none have been passed. A few states, including West Bengal and Manipur, have passed their own anti-lynching laws, but many remain stuck due to procedural delays or lack of assent from the central government. The absence of central legislation leaves enforcement uneven and largely dependent on local police and judicial discretion.
Conclusion
Mob lynching is not just about law and order; it’s about the kind of society we are becoming. When identity becomes a trigger for violence, and silence becomes the response from those in power, justice loses its meaning.
Laws can punish, courts can guide, but unless there is a collective will to stand against hate and protect every life equally, no judgment will be enough. The time to act is not when another life is lost but now.
FAQS
Q1. If mob lynching is already punishable under existing laws, why is there a demand for a separate anti-lynching law?
Because existing provisions like murder or rioting, fail to capture the group-based, identity-driven nature of lynching. A specific law would ensure better classification, quicker trials, and recognition of the hate-crime element, which is often overlooked.
Q2. Are courts doing enough to stop lynching?
Courts have issued strong directions, especially the Supreme Court in 2018. But without strict compliance by state governments and police, judicial words alone aren’t enough. What’s missing is active enforcement.
Q3. Why are so many lynching cases delayed or dismissed?
Delays often stem from weak charge sheets, reluctance to name the mob, and lack of witness protection. In some cases, victims’ families face pressure to stay silent, while the accused receive political or community support.
Q4. How does the media influence public perception of lynching cases?
Media coverage plays a big role. Some outlets highlight the communal angle; others shift focus to alleged crimes by the victim. This shapes public opinion and can affect the fairness of investigations.
Q5. What makes mob violence against Muslims more than just “law and order” cases?
These attacks often follow a pattern of communal targeting. When one community is disproportionately affected and the law responds slowly or not at all it becomes not just a criminal issue but a constitutional concern.
Q6. Can individual citizens be held accountable if they were part of a mob but didn’t physically attack anyone?
Yes. Under law, mere participation in an unlawful assembly with a common intent can make one liable. Standing by silently is not always innocent when part of a group that acts violently.
