Author: Kasak Dubey
Swami Vivekanand University, Sagar Madhya Pradesh
To the point
In recent years, mob lynching and hate crimes have emerged as deeply troubling realities in Indian society, shaking the very foundations of constitutional democracy and the rule of law. These violent acts, often perpetrated by self-proclaimed vigilante groups, typically target individuals based on their religion, caste, ethnicity, or alleged criminal behavior, and are frequently carried out in public with alarming impunity. What is most disturbing is the normalization of hatred, where groups take the law into their own hands under the guise of moral, religious, or nationalistic motives—be it in the name of cow protection, child-lifting rumors, interfaith relationships, or identity-based prejudice.
While lynching is not a new phenomenon, its increasing frequency, communal overtones, and viral spread through social media platforms have transformed it into a dangerous form of extra-judicial punishment—one that mocks both legal procedures and basic human rights. Victims are often denied a fair investigation or justice, and perpetrators are sometimes glorified as heroes in certain sections of society.
This article aims to explore the legal vacuum around mob lynching in India, the social and political context fueling hate crimes, and the urgent need for legislative and judicial reforms.
In writing this, the goal is not only to analyze the legal framework and societal failures but also to advocate for a more just, tolerant, and accountable system—one that upholds the fundamental rights of every citizen regardless of faith, identity, or background. Addressing this issue is no longer a matter of public outrage alone—it is a test of India’s commitment to justice, equality, and the rule of law.
Use of legal jagron
Mob lynching and hate crimes, though socially recognized and widely condemned, fall into a complex legal vacuum in India. Interestingly, there is no specific definition or statutory provision for “mob lynching” under Indian criminal law. Instead, such incidents are prosecuted under general provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, now being replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Offences like murder (Section 302 IPC / Clause 101 BNS), rioting (Sections 146–148 IPC / Clause 189 BNS), unlawful assembly (Section 141 IPC / Clause 187 BNS), Criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC, and promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, place of birth, residence, or language under Section 153A of the IPC, are also frequently invoked.
Despite the gravity of these crimes, the absence of a dedicated anti-lynching law has led to inconsistencies in investigation, prosecution, and punishment. Courts often treat lynching as a group murder, which overlooks the broader sociological and hate-based dimensions of the act. Hate crimes are those criminal acts motivated by bias or prejudice against a particular community, and when committed by a group, they reflect not just individual criminal intent but also collective intolerance and social animosity.
The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), recognized mob lynching as a growing menace and directed states to formulate special laws and guidelines, including fast-track courts, victim compensation, and police accountability. Yet, till date, the Manav Suraksha Kanoon (MASUKA)—a proposed bill to criminalize mob lynching—remains unpassed in Parliament.
In legal terminology, these acts also touch upon constitutional violations, such as the right to life under Article 21, equality before law under Article 14, and the right to freedom of religion and expression under Articles 25 and 19. When lynchings are motivated by identity-based hatred, they not only violate criminal law but also undermine the secular and democratic ethos of the Indian Constitution.
To the proof
Mob lynching and hate crimes in India have evolved into a serious socio-legal crisis, marked by targeted violence, group vigilantism, and systemic failures in law enforcement. These acts are typically motivated by communal hatred, caste-based discrimination, religious intolerance, or social media-fueled paranoia, and have seen a sharp rise since 2015. Independent data sources like IndiaSpend’s Hate Crime Watch and FactChecker.in documented over 100 lynching-related deaths between 2015 and 2021, with a disproportionate number of victims belonging to Muslim, Dalit, and tribal communities. Most lynching cases are tied to accusations of cow slaughter, interfaith relationships (often labeled “love jihad”), or child-lifting rumors—none of which are established through legal inquiry before violence is inflicted. States like Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh have emerged as hotspots for such crimes.
Despite the gravity of these acts, India has no separate legal definition or law on mob lynching. These offences are prosecuted under general provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, or its successor, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Commonly invoked provisions include Section 302 of the IPC / Clause 101 of the BNS (Murder), Sections 147 to 149 of the IPC / Clauses 189 to 190 of the BNS (Rioting and Unlawful Assembly), and Section 153A of the IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc.). Section 295A IPC (Deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), Section 34 (Acts done by several persons with common intention), and Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy). However, these laws address only the outcome—such as murder or violence—but fail to capture the collective and hate-driven nature of mob lynching.
The Supreme Court of India, in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), strongly condemned mob lynching and issued preventive guidelines, urging the central and state governments to create a special legal framework to curb such crimes. Yet, these recommendations remain largely unimplemented, and the Manav Suraksha Kanoon (MASUKA)—a civil society-drafted bill proposing a separate law to criminalize mob lynching—has not been passed by Parliament. As a result, victims’ families often struggle to access justice due to delayed investigations, political interference, and lack of witness protection.
Adding to the concern is the fact that the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not maintain dedicated statistics for lynching or hate crimes, treating them instead as generic murder or assault cases. This makes it difficult to track trends or implement targeted policy interventions. Meanwhile, many incidents are recorded on mobile phones and circulated via social media, and in some cases, the accused are celebrated, garlanded, or offered legal aid by political groups, showcasing the politicization of violence. Furthermore, law enforcement officials have often been accused of delayed response, procedural lapses, or outright complicity, violating the duties imposed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC, 1973) and now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023).
Institutions like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly highlighted these patterns and urged the Indian state to treat lynching as an urgent human rights crisis. In the absence of a dedicated statute, constitutional protections under Articles 14, 21, and 25—which guarantee equality, life and liberty, and religious freedom—are routinely violated in such incidents. These relevant facts reveal not only a growing wave of communal vigilantism but also an urgent need for legal reform, accountability, and proactive state intervention to restore faith in the rule of law and the Indian Constitution.
Abstract
Mob lynching and hate crimes represent one of the gravest threats to India’s constitutional values in recent times. These acts of violence, often carried out by groups driven by communal, caste-based, or ideological hatred, reflect a dangerous trend of individuals taking the law into their own hands. Despite increasing instances—ranging from cow vigilantism to interfaith relationships and false rumors—India lacks a dedicated legal framework to address such crimes, leading to inconsistent prosecutions and a culture of impunity. This article critically examines the socio-legal dimensions of mob lynching, highlighting its root causes, patterns, and the failure of the state apparatus in preventing and punishing such acts. Drawing from constitutional provisions, landmark judgments like Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, and general criminal law provisions under the Indian Penal Code and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the piece argues for urgent legislative and institutional reforms. The discussion underscores the need for a standalone anti-lynching law, greater police accountability, and a renewed commitment to secularism, justice, and the rule of law to curb this alarming form of collective violence.
Case laws
1. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501
The Court condemned mob lynching as a growing “horrendous act of mobocracy” and held that it is the duty of the State to protect citizens from such lawlessness.
It issued comprehensive directions to all States and Union Territories, including:
Appointment of a nodal officer in each district.
•Establishment of fast-track courts.
•Victim and witness protection.
•Strict action against negligent police officials.
2. Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192
Though focused on honour killings, the Court dealt with mob-based violence by khap panchayats.
It ruled that no person or group can interfere in the marriage of consenting adults.
The State must:
•Prevent extra-legal assemblies (khap panchayats).
•Ensure police protection in cases of inter-caste or inter-religious marriages.
Conclusion
Mob lynching and hate crimes have emerged as some of the most disturbing and regressive forms of violence in contemporary India. These acts, often driven by communal hatred, caste discrimination, or misinformation, reflect a deeper breakdown of the social fabric and the erosion of constitutional morality. What makes these crimes particularly alarming is not just their brutality, but the sense of impunity surrounding them—where perpetrators act fearlessly, sometimes even proudly, knowing that political protection, public silence, or investigative failure might shield them from consequences. Despite the Supreme Court’s proactive role, especially in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, and repeated appeals by civil society, India still lacks a comprehensive legal framework that defines and criminalizes mob lynching as a distinct and punishable offence.
The failure to enact a dedicated anti-lynching law continues to result in fragmented prosecution under general criminal law provisions, which fail to address the group-based, hate-driven nature of these acts. Victims—often Muslims, Dalits, tribal groups, or interfaith couples—face not only violence but also legal delays, police apathy, and social stigma. The situation is worsened by the absence of national data, political indifference, and growing digital misinformation. In a country governed by the ideals of liberty, equality, and justice, such targeted violence represents not just a legal failure but a constitutional crisis.
To move forward, India urgently needs a multi-pronged and coordinated response. Parliament must enact a dedicated anti-lynching law that clearly defines the offence, provides for stringent punishment, ensures time-bound investigations, and guarantees compensation and protection for victims and witnesses. Law enforcement must be held accountable for dereliction of duty, and fast-track courts should be established for lynching cases to ensure timely justice. Moreover, national crime data on lynching must be officially recorded and made public to improve transparency and policymaking. On a broader level, there must be strong efforts to counter hate speech, regulate digital misinformation, and promote constitutional values of secularism and fraternity through education and community outreach. Political leaders, media houses, and civil society must speak in one voice to condemn such violence without bias or hesitation.
In conclusion, tackling mob lynching is not merely about filling legislative gaps—it is about reaffirming India’s commitment to justice, equality, and human dignity. The road ahead must be shaped by both legal reform and moral courage, ensuring that no individual or community ever feels unsafe in the world’s largest democracy.
FAQS
1. What is mob lynching?
Mob lynching refers to the unlawful killing of a person by a group of people, usually driven by perceived crimes, rumors, or communal hatred, often bypassing legal processes. It is a form of vigilante violence.
2. What are hate crimes?
Hate crimes are criminal acts motivated by bias, hatred, or prejudice against an individual or group based on religion, caste, race, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
3.What role does social media play in mob lynching cases?
Social media platforms often amplify rumors and fake news, especially related to child lifting, cow slaughter, or religious sentiments, which can incite mobs and lead to violent lynchings.
4.What remedies are available for victims of mob lynching and hate crimes?
•Victims or their families can:
•File a First Information Report (FIR).
•Approach the State Human Rights Commission or National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
•Seek compensation under victim compensation schemes.
•File a writ petition in High Court or Supreme Court for justice.
5.What is the way forward to tackle mob lynching and hate crimes?
•Enactment of a central anti-lynching law.
•Swift trials through special fast-track courts.
•Strict regulation of fake news on digital platforms.
•Sensitization of police and local administration.
•Awareness campaigns to promote harmony and counter communal narratives.