Mob Lynching

What is ‘Mob Lynching’?

There exists no definitional unison of the words ‘mob’ and ‘lynching’, however, as per Black Law’s Dictionary, a Mob is an assemblage of ‘many’ people, acting in a violent and disorderly manner, defying the law, and committing, or threatening to commit, depredations upon property or violence to persons. The term ‘many’ in Indian context is construed as five or more people as per Section 103 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Subsequently, Lynch law, according to the Black Law’s Dictionary is a term descriptive of the action of unofficial persons, organized bands, or mobs, who seize persons charged with or suspected of crimes, or take them out of the custody of the law, and inflict summary punishment upon them, without legal trial, and without the warrant or authority of law.

Official Definition of ‘Mob Lynching’

There exists no definitional unison of the words ‘mob’ and ‘lynching’, reiterated by The Union Home Ministry informing the Parliament in 2019 that there was ‘no separate’ definition for lynching under the IPC, adding that lynching incidents could be dealt with under Sections 300 and 302 of the IPC, pertaining to murder, with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita adding a caveat to the same provision, but a punishment for what Shri Bandi Sanjay Kumar, the Minister of State for Home Affairs construed as ‘Mob Lynching’.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, in section 103 (2), while not attributing the term ‘mob lynching’ to this section, defines the act and prescribes punishment for the same- When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Legal Provisions related to ‘Mob Lynching’

After the release of the new criminal laws, the government has now included Mob Lynching under Section 103 (2) of the BNS. Meanwhile, Mob Lynching also finds reference in various state legislations and other procedural codes.

Puducherry Police Department issued a Standard Operating Procedure which lays down guidelines for officials and police officers to follow while dealing with a [potential] crime under Section 103 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanshita, 2023 (BNSS) which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down preventive measures to tackle the issue of Mob Lynching. Under Section 168 and 172, Every police officer may interpose for the purpose of preventing, and shall, to the best of his ability, prevent, the commission of any cognizable offence.

What the provision simply means is that every police officer can step in to stop any serious crime from happening, and that they must do their best prevent any serious cirme such as Mob Lynching.

Further it lays down the groundwork to identify the places where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past times. It also requires regular meetings with the local intelligence units in the districts and station houses to identify the vigilantism and mob violence. The act also vests power within the police officials to take punitive actions against such mobs and their dispersal.

The Prevention of Mob Lynching Bill, 2022

The Prevention of Mob Lynching Bill, 2022 was brought into the Lok Sabha and layed the groundwork for prevention of Mob Lynching and addressed the broader issue of the police’s role in preventing such instances. The bill had envisioned a broad framework which essentially layed down the procedures to be followed in cases of hate crime and mob lynching.

Though the bill was optimistic in its approach, it couldn't materialise as an Act due to the lack of consensus in favour of the bill.

The Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Ordinance, 2018

The Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Ordinance, 2018 was enacted to address the rising incidents of mob violence and lynching in Manipur. It was drafted in response to the Supreme Court of India’s directive to states to take preventive, remedial, and punitive measures against mob violence.

It prescribes stringent punishments, including life imprisonment for those directly involved in mob lynching leading to death. The ordinance was an important legislative step to curb mob violence, reflecting a commitment to uphold the rule of law and protect the constitutional rights of citizens. It highlights the responsibility of both the state and society in addressing this grave issue.

The Rajasthan Protection From Lynching Bill, 2019

The Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill, 2019, was introduced to combat mob lynching in Rajasthan, particularly in the wake of rising incidents in the state and across India. The bill aimed to fulfill the directives issued by the Supreme Court in the 2018 case Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India to prevent and punish mob violence and lynching.

The bill dealt with various nuances such as preventive measures, speedy trials, victim protection and compensation and the accountability of the police officials.

The Union government did not forward it for approval, citing inconsistencies with central laws. Critics argued that the bill overlapped with existing provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) dealing with murder, rioting, and other forms of violence. The bill faced opposition from political parties at the national level, with concerns that it was duplicative or introduced for political mileage rather than to address systemic issues effectively.

A comparative analysis of the statutory standards for mob lynching

Statute/Ordinance	Mob	Lynching	Unified Definition of "mob" and "lynching" / Punishment
[Implemented] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023	A group of five or more persons	No definition for lynching.	When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
[Implemented] The West Bengal (Prevention Of Lynching) Bill, 2019 [Published In The Kolkata Gazette]	A group of two or more individuals	Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting or attempting an act of violence, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity or any other ground;	No unfiied definition.
[Not Implemented] The Kerala Protection From Lynching Bill, 2020	A group of two or more persons	Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting or attempting an act of violence, whether spontaneous or planned, by two or more persons on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual morality, sexual orientation, moral policing, ethnicity or any other related grounds and includes any act involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news;	No unfiied definition.
[Not Implemented] The Rajasthan Protection From Lynching Bill, 2019	A group of two or more individuals	Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting or attempting an act of violence, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity;	No unfiied definition.
[Not Implemented] The Manipur Protection From Mob Violence Ordinance, 2018	A group of two or more individuals, [assembled with a common intention of lynching]	Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting such act/acts thereof, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity or any other related grounds or on mere suspicion of commission of a cognizable crime not amounting to a heinous one;	No unfiied definition.
[Not Implemented] [Private Bill In Parliament] The Prevention Of Mob Lynching Bill, 2022	A group of two or more individuals, [assembled with an intention of causing violence or lynching]	Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting or attempting an act of violence, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity or any other related grounds;	No unfiied definition.
[Not Implemented] The Protection From Lynching Bill, 2017	A group of two or more individuals, [assembled with an intention of lynching].	Any act or series of acts of violence or aiding, abetting or attempting an act of violence, whether spontaneous or planned, by a mob on the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, language, dietary practices, sexual orientation, political affiliation, ethnicity or any other related grounds.	No unfiied definition.

Other official victim compensation measures-

1. Telangana- It provides measures to provide compensation to the victims..
2. Bihar

Judicial interventions to Mob Lynching

Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India

In the Supreme Court case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs. Union of India, the judges recommended including preventive measures by establishing special task forces within the Police for quick and prompt response to such cases. Further, a broader inclusion of the term was recommended by the Court. This judgement played a pivotal role in Government’s decision to finally recognise Mob Lynching ƒormally under the criminal laws. Under the new criminal laws, BNS addresses the issue of mob lynching and hate crime and described the same in Section 103(2) of BNS.

Dadri lynching case

The Dadri lynching of 2015 is labelled as the first instance of cow vigilantism turning violent.

This incident caused a domino effect of mob lynching under the pretext of "gauraksha" or

protection of the cow. In Dadri, an unarmed Muslim named Mohammad Akhlaq was pulled

Palghar 2020

Probably one of the worst cases of lynching during the pandemic. Herein, two sadhus were

mistaken of having kidnapped and harvested organs of children due to a rumour spread via

WhatsApp. During their journey back home via the district of Palghar in Maharashtra, they

were stopped by a patrol. While the car was halted, a gang of Muslims and Christian

commissionaires began chasing and beating the sadhus. Once this came to the knowledge of

the police, the priests were allowed to sit inside the police van but no attempt was made to

prevent them from being lynched after being dragged out of it.

Mob Lynching in other jurisdictions

International law

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 19 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976), states that “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” Moreover, article 20 (2) adds that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”

Universal Declaration of Human RIghts

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,” protecting the right to life of individuals. Moreover, Article 7 adds that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”

India is a signatory to both these international covenants.

American jurisdiction

The United States of America passed the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, which made lynching a federal hate crime offence: “Specifically, the bill imposes criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 30 years, or both—on an individual who conspires to commit a hate crime offense that results in death or serious bodily injury or that includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.” While there was state legislations criminalising mob justice, it took over 100 years of the original Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill to finally make lynching a federal offence.

European jurisdiction

Statutes

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom protects rights of individuals against mob violence. Article 2 protects every individual’s right to life, with Article 2 (1) stating that “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.” Article 2(2) thereon gives some exceptions to the rule stating that: “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

A similar standard can be seen in the Indian jurisdiction wherein the right of private defence and exercise of authority given by law are part of the general defences.

Moreover, Article (3) prohibits torture stating that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” and Article 6 also protects the rights of individuals to a fair trial, specifically preventing vigilantism and protecting rights of individuals to a fair trial.

Judicial Precedent

This has seen its application in the case of Identoba and Ors. v. Georgia, where the European court of Human Rights (ECtHR), held that the police’s failure to protect those participating in the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOT) march in Tbilisi, Georgia in 2012 violated the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgement stated that “Treating violence and brutality with a discriminatory intent on an equal footing with cases that have no such overtones would be turning a blind eye to the specific nature of acts that are particularly destructive of fundamental rights.” This is a landmark decision with respect to vigilantism and mob justice at large, because the court, for the first time held individuals responsible for indulging in mob violence with discriminatory undertones.

Appearance of the term in database

The severity and escalation of mob violence, including acts of mob lynching, necessitate a statistical analysis to comprehend the phenomenon in depth. However, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) does not maintain specific records on mob lynching, cow vigilantism, or related incidents. This lack of official or government data creates a significant challenge for researchers seeking credible and comprehensive datasets.

A notable issue in this context is the delay in the release of crime statistics for 2017 by the NCRB, which was unprecedented since the bureau began publishing annual reports in 1954. The two-year delay led to widespread speculation that it was a deliberate attempt by the government to control public perception regarding crime and security in India.

Another reason given for not including mob lynching and hate crimes under the report was the absence of any specific section in the IPC at that time. The cases for mob lynching at that time would have been covered under the Murder or Culpable Homicide, and figuring the exact number of cases that were of mob lynching amongst the other crimes was a difficult task.

In the absence of official data, the research reliance can be laid on credible non-governmental sources to analyze the prevalence and impact of mob lynching, while highlighting the systemic challenges in documenting and addressing this grave issue.

Challenges of Mob Lynching

1. Ostracisation and Lack of Legal Representation

Victim Isolation: Victims of mob lynching and their families often face societal ostracisation, deterring others from supporting them.

Reluctance Among Lawyers: Many lawyers refuse to take up cases on behalf of victims due to societal pressures or fear of backlash. This leaves victims without adequate legal representation, prolonging their pursuit of justice.

2. Hostile Witnesses

Witnesses in mob lynching cases frequently turn hostile during trials, often due to intimidation, coercion, or fear of retaliation. This weakens the case against perpetrators and hinders justice.

3. Spread of Virtual Misinformation

Social Media as a Tool for Hatred: Platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook are used to disseminate hate-filled misinformation rapidly, targeting minority communities.

Incitement of Violence: Messages accusing individuals of being child-lifters, cow slaughterers, or anti-social elements are circulated to provoke mobs.

4. Absence of Deterrence

As noted in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, the absence of sufficient fear of the law in society contributes to the persistence of mob lynching. Criminal laws need to be enforced more stringently to act as a deterrent.

5. Inadequate awareness of the provision - The IPC lacked any provision for addressing the issue of mob lynching. This was changed with the introduction of BNS but there still remains the problem of Inadequate awareness. An extremely recent instance of this is BNS not being applied in the case of Mob Lynching in Muradabad even after BNS has been implemented.

Way ahead and Recommendations

1. Police should be aware and alert about handling such situations. There is an urgent need for police training and awareness so that a quick response can be ensured whenever an incident is reported.
2. NGO’s members can make people aware of the facts, lifestyle, and culture of people through programmes or acts/dramas so that there will be fewer issues on casteism.
3. There is a need for measures in place to curb the spread of misinformation on social media. In the Tehseen Poonawalla case, the effect of spread of  misinformation was recognised. Further, recommendations were given to ensure that the state and central government takes actions to curb the spread of misinformation, thus , recognising the gravity of the situation.
4. The Law Commission whilst recognising this fact has tried in its Criminal Law Bill Amendment Bill 2017, to introduce new provisions such as Section 135C of the IPC which proposed to ban even the incitement of hatred. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act, 2015 which places strict punishment on the perpetrators of violence against these communities is perhaps the sole hate crime statute in the Indian legal system. There is a need for incorporating such further provisions to make sure that comprehensive up to date measures are taken.
5. Educating and sensitizing individuals from grassroot level both through the formal education system as well as informal campaigns such as "Not in my Name" and government run initiatives such as 'Ek Bharat Shresht Bharat,
6. There is a need for a specific legislation to address the issue of mob lynching comprehensively. The model for this can be borrowed from the states which have laws already in place to address this like Rajasthan, Manipur and West Bengal.

These recommendations are meant to ensure that all the stakeholders are made aware and capable to fight and eradicate the menace of mob lynching.

Related terms

• Vigilantism;
• Hate crimes;
• Communal Polarization;
• Mob justice;
• Mob violence;
• Cow Vigilantism (Gau Raksha);
• Frontier justice;
• Jungle justice (in Africa);
• Necklacing (in South Africa);
• Popular Justice (in South America).