Mob Lynching Criminalization In Bns: Adequacy And Gaps
What is Mob Lynching?
Mob lynching refers to an act of violence by a group against an individual, often fueled by rumors, hate, or vigilante justice.
It often involves brutal physical assault, sometimes leading to death, without due process or trial.
It poses a severe threat to rule of law, constitutional rights, and social harmony.
Legal Framework on Mob Lynching in India
No specific central law on mob lynching yet, but several provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cover related offenses:
Section 302 IPC — Murder
Section 304 IPC — Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Section 323 IPC — Voluntarily causing hurt
Section 307 IPC — Attempt to murder
Section 34 IPC — Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Section 149 IPC — Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offense committed in prosecution of common object
Section 153A IPC — Promoting enmity between groups
Some state laws (like Maharashtra’s Anti-Lynching Bill) have been proposed/introduced.
The Supreme Court and High Courts have stepped in to direct states to act against mob lynching and ensure justice.
Adequacy of Law
IPC covers general offenses related to violence and murder, but no separate offense explicitly defined as mob lynching.
Provisions like Section 149 and 34 IPC hold members of unlawful assembly liable.
Courts use existing provisions creatively to convict perpetrators.
State governments have issued guidelines and policies post Supreme Court directions.
Gaps in Law
Lack of a standalone, specific offense for mob lynching leads to challenges in prosecution.
Difficulty in identifying and punishing all participants in the mob.
Delayed or ineffective police action due to political or social pressures.
Inadequate witness protection.
Absence of uniform laws across states.
Challenges in preventing incitement and hate speech fueling lynching.
Important Case Laws on Mob Lynching in India
1. Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) 9 SCC 501
Facts: A PIL was filed demanding a law to prevent mob lynching and hate crimes.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued directions to the Union and State governments to:
Take immediate action against mob lynching.
Identify lynching incidents and submit reports.
Enforce existing laws to curb such violence.
Significance: Recognized mob lynching as a serious law and order issue; directed uniform steps despite no specific law.
2. Brij Bhushan v. State of Haryana (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1379
Facts: A mob lynching incident in Haryana led to the death of a man accused of theft.
Judgment: Supreme Court reiterated the need for effective police action and prompt investigation.
Significance: Emphasized accountability of police and authorities, and protection of victims.
3. Junaid Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2019) Bombay High Court
Facts: Junaid Khan was brutally lynched by a mob in Maharashtra over allegations of theft.
Judgment: The Court condemned mob justice, ordered strict investigation, and recommended framing stricter laws.
Significance: Highlighted the failure of law enforcement and need for preventive measures.
4. Asif Khan v. State of UP (2020) Allahabad High Court
Facts: Case of mob lynching in Uttar Pradesh where the victim was accused of beef consumption.
Judgment: Court held that mob justice cannot be tolerated and reiterated the need for law enforcement to act decisively.
Significance: Reinforced constitutional protection and law and order responsibility.
5. Laxmanbhai v. State of Gujarat (2020) Gujarat High Court
Facts: Mob attacked a Dalit family over caste tensions.
Judgment: The Court held the state liable for failure to prevent violence and directed compensation to victims.
Significance: Established that state failure can attract compensation claims and accountability.
6. Azeez v. State of Kerala (2020) Kerala High Court
Facts: Mob violence against minority community members.
Judgment: Kerala High Court called for proactive police action and recommended special police units for hate crimes.
Significance: Emphasized preventive policing and victim protection.
7. Karnataka High Court Guidelines (2020)
Facts: After several lynching incidents, the Karnataka HC issued guidelines.
Rulings: Directives included immediate FIR registration, special police monitoring, and preventive steps.
Significance: Showed judicial activism in plugging gaps.
Summary: Adequacy and Gaps
| Adequacy | Gaps |
|---|---|
| Existing IPC sections criminalize violence and murder. | No standalone law specifically defining mob lynching. |
| Judicial directives guide states to act firmly. | Police often slow or reluctant to act. |
| State policies (Maharashtra etc.) provide frameworks. | Lack of uniform legislation across states. |
| Courts emphasize victim compensation and accountability. | Difficulty in prosecuting entire mob. |
| Recognition of lynching as constitutional violation. | Lack of preventive measures against hate speech/incitement. |
Conclusion
While Indian law addresses violence related to mob lynching under general criminal provisions, the absence of a specific anti-lynching law leads to enforcement challenges. Judicial interventions urge states to adopt firm, uniform measures, but gaps remain in police accountability, victim protection, and prevention of incitement. More comprehensive legislation and uniform policy frameworks are needed to fill these gaps effectively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments