Criminal Liability For Political Violence, Mob Attacks, And Hartal-Related Crimes
🧾 I. Introduction
Political violence, mob attacks, and hartal-related crimes are acts of collective disorder that threaten public order, safety, and individual rights. Such crimes can include:
Political violence: Violence instigated during elections, strikes, or protests for political gain.
Mob attacks / lynching: Collective violence by groups against individuals, often spontaneous but sometimes organized.
Hartal-related crimes: Disruption of public life during strikes (hartals), including rioting, arson, obstruction of transport, and assault.
The criminal liability arises under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sometimes in combination with special laws like the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, or Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts for mob violence.
⚖️ II. Relevant Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code (IPC)
| Section | Offence |
|---|---|
| 147 | Punishment for rioting |
| 148 | Rioting with deadly weapon |
| 149 | Liability for offences committed in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly |
| 323 / 324 | Voluntarily causing hurt / causing hurt with weapons |
| 307 | Attempt to murder |
| 427 | Mischief causing damage to property |
| 302 / 304 | Murder / culpable homicide |
| 153A / 153B | Promoting enmity between groups |
Other Laws
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 – punishes destruction of public property during strikes or protests.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Sections 133, 144 – for preventive orders during potential mob gatherings.
Key principle: Under Section 149 IPC, all members of an unlawful assembly are criminally liable for acts committed in furtherance of their common object, even if they did not personally commit the act.
⚖️ III. Case Law Discussions
Case 1: State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Singh & Others (1998)
Facts:
During a political rally, a mob attacked members of an opposing political party, causing injuries and property damage.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that all members of the unlawful assembly were liable under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, even if only some committed the actual violence. Evidence such as presence at the scene and participation in chanting slogans was sufficient to establish common object.
Significance:
Affirms the principle of collective criminal liability for mob violence.
Case 2: State of Kerala v. S. Ramesh (2000)
Facts:
During a hartal, protesters blocked traffic, damaged shops, and assaulted policemen.
Held:
The Kerala High Court emphasized that participation in hartal does not justify violence. Sections 143, 146, 149 IPC applied to protesters who engaged in rioting. Court also upheld preventive action under CrPC Section 144.
Significance:
Clarifies that hartals or strikes are not a defense for assault, arson, or obstruction. Peaceful protest is lawful; violent conduct is criminal.
Case 3: Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged mob violence and lynching incidents where groups attacked individuals allegedly involved in “cow slaughter” under the guise of moral policing.
Held:
Supreme Court reiterated that mob violence is unlawful, and authorities must act to prevent lynching. It highlighted that Section 302/307 IPC applies to mob killings, and law enforcement cannot allow vigilantism under any pretext.
Significance:
Shows modern application of IPC provisions to politically or socially motivated mob attacks, including lynching. Reinforces state responsibility.
Case 4: State of Bihar v. Phulwariya & Others (1996)
Facts:
During a political hartal, a group of protesters attacked police pickets and public buses. Multiple people were killed in the chaos.
Held:
The court applied Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC for rioting, Section 427 IPC for property damage, and Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder. Arrests included both direct attackers and those instigating the mob.
Significance:
This case illustrates broad liability for organizers and participants, showing courts hold even indirect actors responsible under the doctrine of common object.
Case 5: Lalu Prasad v. State of Bihar (2005) – Ruling on Political Strikes
Facts:
During politically motivated hartals, extensive damage was caused to public property and disruption of essential services.
Held:
The Patna High Court held that political leaders could be held criminally liable if evidence shows instigation or organization of violent strikes. Liability extended under Section 34 (common intention) IPC.
Significance:
Highlights accountability of political leaders in hartal-related violence, beyond the individual participants.
Case 6 (Bonus): People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra (2002)
Facts:
Mob attacks targeted minorities during politically motivated rallies. Police were accused of inaction.
Held:
Supreme Court observed that law enforcement must proactively prevent political violence. Failure to act can attract liability under Section 132 IPC (abetment by public servants) and constitutional duty under Article 21.
Significance:
Emphasizes state responsibility and preventive measures for political violence and mob attacks.
🧩 IV. Key Legal Principles
| Offence | Applicable Sections / Law | Criminal Liability Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Political violence | IPC 147, 148, 149, 307 | All participants in unlawful assembly liable |
| Mob attacks / lynching | IPC 302, 307, 149 | Common object / collective responsibility applies |
| Hartal-related crimes | IPC 143–149, 427; PDPP Act 1984 | Peaceful protest is lawful; violent disruption attracts criminal charges |
| Instigation / Leadership | IPC 34, 120B | Leaders can be criminally liable for organizing or instigating violent mobs |
🧠 V. Conclusion
Criminal liability for political violence, mob attacks, and hartal-related crimes relies on:
Direct participation in violence
Doctrine of common object (Section 149 IPC)
Organizing or instigating violent acts
Failure of authorities to prevent violence
Courts consistently reinforce that political objectives, hartals, or collective sentiments cannot justify violence, assault, or property damage. Leaders, organizers, and participants can all face severe penalties, including imprisonment.
RELATED Blog
comments