MOB LYNCHING IN INDIA

                                                    Section 103(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

INTRODUCTION

When the law is taken out of the hands of the courts and left to the masses, serious harm can follow. Mob lynching involves a group using violence to punish a person outside the legal system. It raises serious concerns because the State has a duty to protect people, investigate offenses properly and ensure that criminal liability is determined through a fair process.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), which came into force on 1 July 2024, introduced a specific offence for certain group murders under Section 103(2). However, a severe punishment alone cannot prevent violence or guarantee justice. Effective prevention, proper investigation, fair trials, victim and witness protection, and accountability are also necessary.

MOB LYNCHING

Mob lynching generally refers to a situation in which a group attacks a person whom its members believe has done something wrong, attempting to punish that person outside the legal system. Such attacks may be fueled by rumours, false information, hatred or vigilantism. The term describes a broader social problem; not every group attack will meet the legal requirements of Section 103(2) of the BNS.

This distinction matters because a court must consider the evidence, the conduct of each accused person and the elements set out in the relevant statute. Mere presence near an incident does not, by itself, prove participation. At the same time, the burden of proof must not become an excuse for an incomplete or careless investigation.

STATUTORY AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Section 103(2) of the BNS

Section 103(2) applies where five or more persons acting in concert commit murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief, or another similar ground. Each member of the group may be punished with death or imprisonment for life and is also liable to a fine.

The provision therefore requires at least five people, concerted action, a murder, and a specified or similar ground. The prosecution must prove the legal ingredients through evidence. If an attack does not result in murder, Section 103(2) will not apply, although another offence may be made out depending on the facts.

Other relevant provisions

Section 117(4) of the BNS addresses voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a group of five or more persons acting together on specified or similar grounds.

Depending on the facts, other provisions relating to hurt, unlawful assembly or attempt to murder may also be relevant. The charge must fit the evidence and the legal requirements of the offence.

Constitutional values

Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty, subject to procedure established by law. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. Article 15 prohibits specified forms of discrimination by the State. Mob violence threatens these values, particularly when authorities fail to protect people or investigate offences properly. Articles 14 and 21, and Article 15 where relevant, help assess the State’s response to such violence.

The rule of law means that no person or group can impose its own punishment. Accused persons are entitled to the protections of a fair legal process, while victims are entitled to protection, proper investigation and access to justice. Public anger cannot replace the law.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Supreme Court decisions

In Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court strongly condemned lynching and mob violence and issued directions intended to prevent, remedy and punish such incidents. These included identifying vulnerable areas, appointing district nodal officers, responding to information about possible incidents, promptly registering and investigating cases, considering victim compensation, and taking action against negligent officials. The judgment recognizes the duty of authorities to respond to reasonably foreseeable threats.

In Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed mob violence associated with protests and threats to public order, including the violence surrounding the film Padmaavat. The decision reinforces that groups cannot use violence to enforce their views. The State must protect public order and lawful freedoms while ensuring that offences are investigated and prosecuted.

Effectiveness of Section 103(2) in Delivering Justice

Section 103(2) recognizes a specific form of group murder and prescribes a severe punishment. However, this does not automatically create a deterrent effect or ensure justice. The provision can be effective only when offences are detected, investigated properly and prosecuted fairly.

Mob cases may involve many participants, conflicting accounts and witnesses who fear threats or retaliation. Evidence must be preserved carefully and digital material must be verified. Investigators must assess each person’s role and must not reach conclusions solely from a viral clip or public pressure. A reliable case depends on admissible evidence and a fair process.

The provision also has limits. It requires at least five people acting together, a murder, and a specified or similar ground. If no murder occurs, or if the required ground cannot be proved, another legal provision may apply. That does not make the conduct lawful; it means the charge must match the facts. The phrase “any other similar ground” may require judicial interpretation in a particular case.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Prevention must be a priority. Police and district authorities should identify credible threats, respond quickly to unlawful violence and implement the Supreme Court’s directions. Clear reporting and escalation channels can help authorities intervene before rumours develop into attacks.

Investigations must be professional. Original video files should be preserved, the chain of custody documented, digital evidence verified, and forensic analysis used where appropriate. Investigators should assess each individual’s actions. Victims and witnesses should receive suitable protection, legal support and compensation, and witnesses must be able to give evidence without fear.

Accountability must be meaningful. Where evidence shows that an official failed to perform a legal duty, appropriate action should follow. Allegations of official failure must be assessed fairly and on the evidence. False rumours should be addressed promptly, and the media and local communities should help reduce risk while respecting freedom of expression and lawful peaceful assembly. Section 148 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for dispersal of certain assemblies in the circumstances set out in the law.

Conclusion

Section 103(2) of the BNS is an important statutory measure for qualifying group murders, but it is not enough on its own to address mob lynching. Its effectiveness depends on prevention, sound evidence collection, witness protection, fair prosecution and accountability. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla and Kodungallur Film Society underline the importance of prevention and responsible State action.

The rule of law is tested most when a crowd demands immediate punishment. Justice requires evidence, fair procedures and accountability. A law is not effective merely because it prescribes a harsh sentence; it must also protect life and uphold the equal dignity of every person.

What steps do you think India should take to prevent mob lynching and protect innocent lives? Share your thoughts in the comments and help spread awareness about the importance of justice, equality, and the rule of law.

REFERENCES

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023), ss. 103(2), 117(4).
• Constitution of India, arts. 14, 15 and 21.
• Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501.
• Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 713.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, s. 148.


AUTHOR BIO
Divya.H 
A law student at ABBS School of Law with an interest in criminal law, constitutional rights, and legal analysis.