This article is written by Tanu Sheoran of National Law University Meghalaya, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
Abstract
In India, the erosion of legal institutions and the rise of vigilante justice have enabled mob lynching to emerge as a grave manifestation of public violence. This form of collective brutality, often instigated by caste, communal, or political motivations, highlights glaring deficiencies in the country’s criminal justice system. While lynching itself is not a new phenomenon, its recent normalization and alarming frequency have led to urgent demands for a dedicated legal framework. This paper traces the legal evolution of lynching as a criminal concern, evaluates judicial and legislative interventions, scrutinizes the adequacy of the Indian Penal Code, and examines the transformative role of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Comparative insights from international jurisdictions further illuminate the path toward structural reforms and robust legal strategies necessary to curtail this alarming trend of mob violence.
Keywords
Mob lynching, criminal law, vigilantism, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, hate crime, public violence, legal reform.
Introduction
The surge in mob lynching cases across India over the past decade poses a serious threat to the rule of law and democratic values. Victims of such violence are frequently targeted over perceived violations of societal norms or communal sentiments. Defined as an extrajudicial killing executed by a group assuming the roles of judge, jury, and executioner, lynching has operated in a legal vacuum for years. The absence of a specific statute addressing these acts has allowed mob violence to flourish, often abetted by political and societal complicity.
Historical Context and Emergence of Lynching as a Legal Concern
Though mob lynching as a form of collective violence is historically entrenched, its intensification in recent years has placed it under legal and political scrutiny. Incidents such as the 2015 Dadri lynching, triggered by rumors of beef consumption, and the 2017 Pehlu Khan case, arising from cow vigilantism, expose the communal and hate-driven undercurrents of mob violence. Typically executed by self-styled custodians of religion or morality, these lynchings are frequently fueled by orchestrated misinformation and mass hysteria. Until recently, such acts were prosecuted under general provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, such as unlawful assembly (Section 141), rioting (Sections 146–148), and murder (Section 302). However, these provisions failed to reflect the collective culpability and socio-political impunity that characterize mob lynching.
The Supreme Court’s Intervention: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India
In the landmark case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court unequivocally denounced mob lynching and directed both central and state governments to legislate against it. The Court asserted that “horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be allowed to become a new norm,” underlining the necessity of legislative and administrative safeguards. The judgment mandated the appointment of senior police officers in each district to prevent mob violence, the establishment of fast-track courts to ensure speedy justice, the formulation of victim compensation schemes, and legal action against law enforcement officials failing in their duty. Despite this judicial call to action, implementation at the state level remained largely insufficient.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: A Statutory Breakthrough
A significant milestone was achieved with the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which supplanted the Indian Penal Code. Section 103(2) of the BNS introduces mob lynching as a distinct criminal offence, particularly when five or more individuals commit murder on grounds such as race, caste, religion, community, gender, place of birth, language, or personal belief. This statutory provision marks a crucial development in Indian criminal law by officially recognizing mob lynching, prescribing stringent punishments including life imprisonment and even the death penalty, and acknowledging the hate-fueled motivations that frequently underlie such crimes. However, the effectiveness of this provision will depend heavily on robust enforcement, interpretative clarity, and safeguards against misuse.
Analysis of Existing Legal Framework: IPC v. BNS
Under the IPC, mob lynching was tackled through generic offences such as murder (Section 302), grievous hurt (Sections 319–325), and rioting, without addressing the mob dynamic or the socio-psychological motives of hate crimes. In contrast, the BNS confronts these issues by explicitly accounting for collective criminal behavior and its ideological underpinnings. Yet, challenges remain. There is still ambiguity surrounding key definitions such as “mob” or “hate motive.” Furthermore, there are no specific procedural guidelines for investigating such crimes, and the diffuse nature of group responsibility complicates prosecution.
State-Specific Legislations: Disparity and Delay
In the absence of central legislation until 2023, several states enacted their own anti-lynching laws. Manipur led with the Manipur Protection from Mob Violence Act, 2018. Rajasthan followed with the Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Act, 2019, which emphasized strict penalties and victim compensation. West Bengal also passed the Prevention of Lynching Bill, 2019, incorporating life imprisonment and provisions for police accountability. However, these state laws differ in definitions, scope, and punishments, resulting in a fragmented legal landscape. Additionally, the efficacy of these statutes has been hampered by delays in obtaining central assent, diminishing their practical implementation.
Global Views of Lynching Laws
Internationally, countries have adopted various approaches to combat lynching and mob violence. The United States, through the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act (2022), has designated lynching as a federal hate crime. South Africa prosecutes mob justice under general murder laws, supplemented by vigilant civil society oversight. In countries like Nigeria and Kenya, legal literacy campaigns and early warning systems have been established to curb mob violence. India could benefit by incorporating similar community-based preventive mechanisms into its legal framework.
Causes of Mob Lynching: Socio-Legal Perspective
Several interlinked factors perpetuate mob lynching in India. Communal polarization, amplified through the unchecked spread of misinformation on social media, is a significant catalyst. The slow and often inefficient legal system contributes to public frustration and a reliance on extrajudicial means of enforcement. Political patronage sometimes provides protection to perpetrators, and until the introduction of the 2023 reforms, there was a glaring lack of legal deterrence. Social scientists argue that mob lynching reflects a majoritarian assertion of control and power, often masked as vigilantism.
Challenges in Enforcement and Reform Strategies
Mob lynching cases are particularly challenging to investigate and prosecute due to the frequent absence of direct evidence and the intimidation of victims and witnesses. There is an urgent need to establish a strong witness protection framework. In numerous instances, law enforcement officers have either failed to act or have tacitly supported mob actions, further eroding public trust. Delays in the judicial process exacerbate the problem, emphasizing the importance of setting up fast-track courts. Moreover, comprehensive data collection on mob lynching by agencies like the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) must be institutionalized for informed policymaking.
Conclusion
The explicit criminalization of mob lynching under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is a pivotal move in upholding the principles of justice and the rule of law. However, legislative action alone cannot rectify the deep-seated social prejudices and systemic flaws that allow mob violence to persist. A multi-pronged approach is essential—one that integrates legal reform, institutional accountability, public awareness, and social education. Without effective and consistent implementation, legal provisions risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative tools for justice.
References
- Chatterjee, R., Mob Lynching in India: A Legal Vacuum, Indian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 9(2), pp. 73–89 (2018).
- Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India, (2018) 9 SCC 501.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, § 103(2).
- Rao, N., Interpreting Section 103(2), Journal of Indian Law and Justice, Vol. 12(1), pp. 101–117 (2024).
- Ghosh, A., Collective Criminality and Proof in Lynching Cases, Indian Law Review, Vol. 6(1), pp. 34–56 (2024).
- Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Act, 2019.
- West Bengal (Prevention of Lynching) Bill, 2019.
- Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act, 2022 (U.S.).
- United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Preventing Lynchings: Global Practices and Legal Norms, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/lynching-prevention (last visited July 1, 2025).
- Banerjee, A., Majoritarian Violence and the Role of the State, Journal of Social Justice Studies, Vol. 7(3), pp. 45–66 (2020).
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.
