Protecting The Marginalized - Indian Anti-Mob Lynching Laws As A Tool For Achieving SDG 10 And SDG 16

Author: LawSphereX

Category: General Law

Published: 2026-08-23T20:48:20.568191+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:10:00.043+00:00

PROTECTING THE MARGINALIZED: INDIAN ANTI-MOB

LYNCHING LAWS AS A TOOL FOR ACHIEVING SDG 10

AND SDG 16

Ishika Aggarwal, B.B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India Mr. Vatsal Chaudhary, Assistant Professor, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

ABSTRACT

Mob lynching, one of the most disturbing social evils in Independent India transforms the idea of equality, justice, and the sovereign rule of law on its face. As the following article explores the phenomenon of lynching in Indian narrow legal justice frameworks, focusing on the tangle of legal and social aspects, its effects on disadvantaged categories, and the promising legislative changes under the BNS 2023, Sections 103(2) and 117(4). However, enforcement gaps, societal biases, and systemic inefficiencies once again work against their efficiency. Based on historical cases like the Tehseen S. Poonawalla case and recent incidents like the mob of Pehlu Khan and Aryan Mishra, this analysis also serves the purpose of requiring an effective approach towards the legal legislation against mob violence. The promotion of anti-lynching must be implemented in sync with SDG 10 and 16.

Current SDG 10 is designed to improve inequalities, and this is crucial because mob lynching attacks mostly the Dalits, Muslims, and tribal populations, amplifying systemic prejudices. The principles of SDG 16 include peaceful and inclusive societies, strong institutions that require proper police work, timely justice, and accountability to public institutions. The study considers some problems, which concern society’s acceptance of mob violence, weak protection of witnesses, and slow legal proceedings, and suggests some specific measures, such as fast-track courts, raising awareness programs, and better digital regulation.

It asserts that the cause of both the intended realization of the SDGs and the elimination of mob lynching involves more than just the introduction of legal amendments; but transformational social processes that challenge and eliminate existing hate-induced prejudice, promote the principles of inclusion, and espouse the letters of the constitution. Given this consideration, there is the need to employ a multiple strategy to work towards overcoming injustice and human rights abuses. Keywords: Mob lynching, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Sustainable Development Goals, Vigilante violence, Section 103(2) of BNS, Communal polarization, Caste-based discrimination

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Mob lynching, a term that refers to a group of people killing an individual can unfortunately be said to be a prevalent social problem in India. Previously vengeful acts could be traced back to local prejudice or conflict but the modern form is another level of violence. To that extent, the act of mob lynching is lawlessness in that it does away with the constitution of courts and interposes the law’s enforcement instead. The practice of mob lynching has come down in India since the colonial era when once in a while caste-related violence and communal disturbances were witnessed. But its re-emergence in contemporary India seems to point towards the increasing incidence of hate crimes or crimes of passion motivated by prejudice and disinformation. 1 These recent figures shed light on how rampant the incidence of mob violence is in India, especially since 2015.

Lynching is not officially documented by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) But few studies and media revelations show the statistics. From 2015 to today more than one hundred mob lynching incidents were recorded and many of them incidents triggered by complaints about beef or human meat consumption, child abduction, or theft. A large part of the victims represented the inferior castes, Muslims, and tribal populations in India, referred to as Adivasis, which points to socially justified violence. These have been aggravated by the widespread use of social media platforms which promote the spreading of fake news and inflammatory articles with false information going around on rumors of child abduction leading to several acts of mob violence like the WhatsApp lynching of Indians.

The attempts to counter this remain rather scarce – besides certain types of state legislation, including the Rajasthan Protection from Lynching Bill. Insufficient data and lack of robust legal actions still prevent the urgent fight against mob violence, as well as its root causes. This is not to mention the social and legal consequences of the practice of mob lynching which go beyond single cases of abuse to challenge the very Indian democracy’s professed principle of equality and rights of individuals. This ill affects the peripherals because marginalized communities get affected most. Adults and children of lower castes, Muslims, and tribal people are the most vulnerable, and vulnerable mob lynching has also turned into a mode of oppression.

Not only is it indicative of the ill-treatment of the marginalized in society, but also Calpurnia’s Dream: the Menace of Mob Lynching in India, available at: https://ohrh. law. ox. ac. uk/calpurniasdream-the-menace-of-mob-lynching-in-india/ (Visited on December 12, 2024).

a step that widens societal cleavages and undermines the constitutional right to equality in terms of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Adding to this, mob lynching defeats the means of social justice and instead takes society into the realm of fear and anarchy. The vulnerable, and most of the time innocent people, lose their right to be protected under the law, and their families are left shattered and broken. The leading case on the subject is Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India2. In this historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on mob killings and issued directions about preventive, remedial, and punitive measures recommending that the state maintain law and order. Nevertheless, frequent similar occurrences indicate that the imperative of legal frameworks remains unfulfilled in practice.

It is also relevant to addressing public mob lynchings for certain SDGs, notably, SDG10 on inequality and SDG16 on responsibilities free from violent incidents. The continued commonality of the use of the mob as a means to impose violence glaringly negates these global goals as it reduces injustice and societal disorder. Because the fight for legislative action against mob lynching is not just the fight for law, but for justice and humanity in all their tortured meanings, and for the Indian citizen’s faith in the Indian justice system at that. This article explores a legal perspective on the legislative provisions related to mob lynching in India concerning the sufficiency of the existing law in dealing with this type of violence.

Earlier, there was no separate law of the country meant specifically for lynching and mob killing, until sections of IPC like section 302 (murder), section 304 (culpable homicide), section 147 (unlawful assembly), etc. , that were used to address this sort of incidents. However, these provisions were often considered insufficient since socio-political factors inherent in gang lynching are different. Realizing this, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was passed in the year 2023 replacing the IPC and including specific provisions to deal with mob lynching.

It is also important to note that, section 103(2) of the BNS assumes that if five people or more individuals can get involved in a murder, targeting a specific group of one particular cast, color, language or religion, community, sex, place of birth and to Personal opinions, every person of the group shall be penalized either with death or life imprisonment and with fine also3. Furthermore, a prison term is up to 7 years or a fine for groups convicted of causing grievous

2 [2018] 9 SCC 744.

3 Kalyani Abhyankar, Lynching: A Threat to Democracy, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3613780 (Visited on December 15, 2024).

brawls under similar circumstances of discrimination as allowed in Section 117(4). These provisions, however, make clear a legislative positive step in addressing mob lynching by providing a criminal basis for its condemnation, however, the efficacy and enforceability of these provisions are yet to be seen given the social prejudices and enforcement obstacles that exist. The discussion will also compare the measures against Lynching with India’s compliance with SDG 10 and SDG 16. This article seeks to explore and explain the impediments to the implementation of the provisions of the laws; to achieve this objective this article compares different case studies and judicial decisions.

Last but not least, it tries to outline the measures to fill these gaps; particularly dwelling on the gaps in the legislative framework and the adequacy of implementation measures to address the issue of mob lynching efficiently. 4

1.2 UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGS)

The United Nation’s 2030 agenda, also known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is the world’s to-do list for the next fifteen years. These 17 integrated goals constitute a coherent set that can help address major issues today and ensure integrated sustainable development for everybody. Of them, SDG 10 and SDG 16 have a closer relation with mob lynching because of the central message of these goals, which is inequality justice, and sustainability in society with efficient government institutions. Understanding these goals in the framework of the Indian legal system exposes the fact that domestic politics have to be adjusted to international treaties to meet the outlined vision of social justice.

1.2.1 Overview of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

SDG 10 which seeks to progressively address the inequalities within and between countries is grounded on equity, ‘Levelling’. This goal seeks to eliminate prejudices that result in social, economic, and political marginalization of certain groups of people. Goals under SDG 10 include the protection of vulnerable groups and, the promotion of equality within access to resources to and about policies that encourage social mobility. These targets have special significance for India where political and social inequalities including caste, religious, and economic discrimination effectively hinder the achievement of equality. 4 Om Narayan Shukla, Dr. Sunita Shrivastava, "Mob Lynching: An Alarming Hate Crime in India", 11 IJCRT h262 (2023).

High-profile cases of mob lynching in India vividly illustrate the failure to correct social injustice because the most affected are from marginalized sections. For instance, data from the recent NCRB report show that the majority of mob violence involves either Dalits, Muslims, or tribal populations implying prejudice. This is rather counterproductive to the basics of SDG 10, which focuses on reducing inequality within and between countries. With this understanding, the lack of precise legal measures against mob lynching turns into a significant question. Despite these provisions that are found in Articles 14 and 15 that recognize and protect equality and also prohibit discrimination the law has been weakened by poor implementation and prejudice. The guidelines given in judicial activations for example, the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla v.

Union of India5, have put much emphasis on state initiatives to prevent mob killings and violence against minorities, SC & STs. Supreme Court Directions like nodal officers, compensation for victims, etc. , work in the direction of SDG targets 10 in case any prejudice arises from any systematic modus operandi. However, the frequency of this phenomenon the acts of mob lynching urge to enhance the legislative base to strengthen the mentioned measures and support the constitutional principles in practice. 6

1.2.2 Overview of SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

SDG 16 focuses on the areas of peace, justice, and strong institutions, by reducing violence, enhancing accountability, and building institutions. They include the elimination of violence namely; sexual and other forms of violence in society; implementing and expanding access to justice; fighting corruption; strengthening transparent/ accountable institutions that will make and sustain the principles of the rule of law. As the paper revealed, attaining SDG 16 in the Indian context means paying attention to structural dysfunction that allows mob lynching and other acts of vigilantism.7 Since mob lynching defeats the very fundamentals of law and order, promotes violence, and denies the principles of SDG 16 of justice and accountability by not protecting the rights of the

5 Supra note 2.

6 Ayush Agrawal, Shriyaditya Shrivastava, "Criminalisation of Mob Lynching under the Bhartiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita 2023", available at: https://nualslawjournal.com/2024/04/22/criminalisation-of-mob-lynchingunderthe-bhartiya-nyaya-second-sanhita-2023/ (Visited on December 14, 2024). 7 Amarnath Paswan, "SDG-16 and Access to Justice for Marginalized Dalit: A Study of Patepur Village of Ghazipur District of Uttar Pradesh", 8 IJRISS 2261 (2024).

victim. According to the BNS, its legal sections offer a way through which mob violence can be prosecuted; Section 302 for murder and Section 149 for unlawful assembly. However, since there is no particular section in the codes that prohibits lynching, the effectiveness of these provisions in tackling mob violence remains wanting due to the idiosyncrasies of the many sided phenomenon. Most of the cases are never investigated on time, and witnesses who could have otherwise testified fail to do so because they are merely alive, fearing that the perpetrators will kill them. To make this area safe for everyone, there must be strong institutions that under SDG16 became a focal point to counter such actions as mob lynching. While dealing with honor killings which fall under mob violence the Supreme Court in its Shakti Vahini v.

Union of India8 emphasized the role of law enforcing agencies and further stressed safeguard measures to protect individual rights. This judgment has a major role in strengthening the institutional capacity to investigate and ensure factual compensation to the victims of mob lynching. Also, for achieving SDG 16, the awareness creation and community mobilization are the core prerequisites as they deal with the causes of violence that lead to improved societal cohesiveness. Thus, the inclusion of SDG 10 and SDG16 in the policy framework of India gives an advantage to address mob lynching and its roots. Reducing inequalities and more capable, legitimate institutions are two further goals that provide a blueprint for the socio-ecological rearrangement of the world.

Nevertheless, to attain these goals, everyone starting with the government, judiciary, non-governmental organizations, and all local communities must turn the principles of the SDGs into tangible results. 9 1. 3

LEGAL FRAMEWORK ADDRESSING MOB LYNCHING IN INDIA

India’s response to mob lynching has emerged in changing social and judicial sensitivity to the failures of the existing law in tackling the grave form of collective violence. Earlier, mob lynching cases fell under section 302 for murder and section 149 for unlawful assembly under IPC. Yet, these provisions did not have the kind of detail needed to deal with planned and largely systematic incidents as those that escalate into mob violence. This lack of completeness together with the missing procedural protections suitable for such cases has created the need

8 [2018] 7 SCC 192.

9 Mohd Mustafa, "Mob Lynching and the Right to Life: A Human Rights Perspective in Light of the Constitutional Framework of India", 11 IJCRT c202 (2023).

for the new legislation. This study aims to highlight that it is appreciable that the voices of campaigns against mob lynching have begun to be acknowledged within Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 by having specific provisions placed.10

1.3.1 Evolution of Anti-Mob Lynching Laws

To an extent, law-wise provisions for mob lynching were nowhere to be seen in the Indian legal framework primarily due to Indian society and its legal system’s collective and systematic apathy towards the social aspect of this crime. More so when targeted legislation was not included, the crime of mob lynching was prosecuted under general criminal laws, which offered piecemeal justice most of the time. For instance, “Section 302” of the IPC concerned murder, and “ Section 147” concerned rioting. While these provisions were not irrelevant, they did not capture the nature of a mob lynching offense, namely, the combined action of multiple persons who planned together based on bringing forth a hijack of the legal process. This is because judicial decisions have filled the above gaps. The decision of the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India11 is a classic example of this.

The Court understood that mob lynching is a new form of crime that has not yet developed its specific type and issued very comprehensive preliminary guidelines for its prevention, including the appointment of nodal officers, trials on an expedited basis, and compensation for victims. Though these recommendations were intended to rectify this procedural shortfall, their application was not homogeneous across different states Therefore, a uniform law was imperative.

1.3.2 Introduction of Mob Lynching Provisions in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The crunch of the BNS, 2023 indicates the new dynamics of Indian criminal law wherein a detailed provision has been provided to address Mob Lynching. One of the major included provisions in the bill is Section 103(2) which defines mob lynching and provides for rigorous imprisonment between 7-10 years for mob lynching and seven years for an abettor. This provision defines mob lynching as a planned activity in which a group kills a person with penalties from a rigorous corrective imprisonment to death if the crime includes extreme 10 F. Vasudeva-Barkdull, "Articulating Lynching in India", available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767- 02409501-5 (Visited on December 16, 2024).

11 11 Supra note 2.

ruthlessness. “Section 103(2)” means not only the codification of mob lynching as a separate crime recognizes its specificity of socio-legal nature but also prevents such activities. Another major addition is the concept of ‘Section 117(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)’ – if somebody dies from violence committed by the mob. On this provision, the proposed legislation lays down severe punitive measures, an imprisonment term that may not exceed ten years, to show that violent assembly does not merit toleration even if it does not claim a single life but inflicts severe harm. The following offenses have been spelt in the BNS so that the police force and the judicial system can prosecute or adjudicate mob lynching cases effectively. 12 Mob Lynching as a premeditated group act Definition resulting in death.

Provisions for Mob Lynching in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Rigorous imprisonment. Section 103(2): Mob Prescribes stringent Lynching punishments Death penalty in cases of extreme brutality. Recognizes mob lynching Significance as a unique offense with socio - legal implications. Addresses collective violence causing grievous hurt. Section 117(4): Grievous Penalties Rigorous imprisonment of Hurt by a Mob up to 10 years. Penalizes severe acts of Significance violence below the threshold of murder. Figure 1 Strengthening Justice: Breaking the Chains of Mob Lynching Through BNS, 2023 12 Fayaz Paul, Arif Ali, et. al. , "Knowledge, Attitude, and Perception towards Mob Lynching among the General Population of India: A Cross-Sectional Study", 11 DYPJHS 132 (2023).

1.3.3 Comparison with Previous Legal Provisions

The shift from the IPC to the BNS is a total reform of criminal law in India which is new changes to meet modernity and problems like mob lynching. The IPC provided blanket provisions for the prosecution of incidents of mob lynching which included sections 302, 304 & 149, these sections did not have the required details necessary when dealing with mob violence and they also failed to provide procedural justice. These shortcomings are resolved by introducing provisions in BNS about ‘Section 103(2)’ and ‘Section 117(4)’ which provide separate offenses of mob lynching and also, provide corresponding punishment. Additionally, the BNS embraces procedural changes to make it more possible to enforce the laws. For instance, nodal officers, the introduction of fast-track courts for mob lynching as prescribed in ‘Tehseen S. Poonawalla’ case etc.

, have been admitted into the procedural legal regime and hence have helped build the state’s ability to address such kinds of offenses. Such changes correspond with the goals set in the concept of the SDGs, especially with the tenth one that envisages peace, justice, and efficient institutions. The BNS is a welcome development, but it can only be as effective as the overall improvements in the system, which include long investigations, intimidated witnesses, and a society that seems to be indifferent to acts of violence against women. Restoring confidence to the victims of mob lynching or their family’s needs more than a mere concoction of legal provisions; it needs a commitment from politicians, the police, civil society organizations, human rights activists, the media, and other interested parties to uphold justice, equity and the rule of law in the country. 13 1. 4

ROOT CAUSES OF MOB LYNCHING IN INDIA

The underlying causes of mob lynching in India reflect a confluence of societal prejudices, systemic gaps, and institutional inefficiencies that exacerbate this alarming issue. Religious Intolerance • Communal tensions; Khelanji Massacre as an example.

13 Prashant Kumar, "Mob Lynching: A Threat for Indian Society", 5 IJLPA 78 (2023).

Superstition and Witch Branding • Vulnerability of women; ineffective laws like the "Prevention of Witch Hunting Bill, 2016." Cow Vigilantism and Cultural Extremism • Example: Dadri lynching; weaponization of cultural sentiments. Economic Frustration • Unemployment and lack of grievance redressal mechanisms. Spread of Misinformation via Digital Platforms • Unregulated social media; role in mob attacks between 2010–2018. Justice Delayed and Distrust in the System • Prolonged trials, pushing people towards extrajudicial actions. Weak Policing and Fearful Witnesses • Inconsistent enforcement; need for police accountability and witness protection. Figure 2 Unmasking the Roots: A Visual Insight into the Causes of Mob Lynching in India 1.5

CASE STUDIES ILLUSTRATING THE IMPACT OF MOB LYNCHING

Some of the very shocking episodes of mob lynching have symbolically unmasked civil society in India and exposed the systemic failure of institutions to protect people and follow law and order. These cases, which feature high levels of communal strife, casteism, and mythinformation, show where specific legal provisions and their implementation leave off. Therefore, this section is an attempt to discuss the effects of mob violence on social justice and the rule of law using some of the high-profile cases. They also point out that SDG 10 and SDG

16 are most relevant to such crimes among all the sustainable development goals.

1.5.1 Pehlu Khan Lynching Case (2017)

The Pehlu Khan lynching case is a classic illustration of the communal color of mob killings in India. The killing involved Pehlu Kumar, a 55-year-old dairy farmer whom self-appointed moral police beat to death in Rajasthan, Alwar district for suspected cow smuggling. The accident on the freeway took place on the 1st of April 2017 despite that Khan had genuine documents for the transportation of cattle. He died from his wounds two days later, and this led to a lot of hostility across the country. System failures that characterized this case include charging delays where chargesheets were not filed for at least two years the police primarily concentrated on the victim’s violations rather than the accused’s actions, and all six accused were acquitted because of insufficient evidence. 14 The case revealed that there were no adequate legal remedies for preventing mob lynching in India.

Although ”Section 302” was used, the failure of the investigation hampered the justice system in India significantly. This particular attack stood in clear violation of the spirit of SDG

10 which strives to ensure the reduction of inequality because the attackers presumed to kill

Pehlu Khan due to his faith. It also brought to the spotlight the importance of SDG 16 to focus on institutions so that there is integrity in law enforcement and the judiciary. Despite all the efforts conducted in the case, the inability to convict any animal remains a stark example of the many ingrained issues that follow mob violence in India.

1.5.2 Tabrez Ansari Lynching Case (2019)

The lynching of Tabrez Ansari in Jharkhand on June 18, 2019, brought the issue of the communal aspect of mob lynching into the public domain. Tabrez, a 24-year-old Muslim man was accused of theft paraded naked, and forced to chant religious slogans as he was lynched by a mob. He was never treated and died four days later of his injuries. As seen from the case, the communal strife interacts with the concept of mob justice since perpetrators advance socioeconomic divide as a pretext for actions. From the legal point of view, the case revealed the major failure of the justice system. While the police reported the accused for "Section 302” of the IPC, the case was later reduced to 14 HT Correspondent, "Pehlu Khan Lynching: A Look at the Case So Far", Hindustan Times, August 14, 2019.

“Section 304” of the IPC, which is culpable homicide though not murder. This decision along with others such as late surgery, delay in seeking professional medical assistance, and negligence in performing certain processes attracted a lot of condemnations. The occurrence constitutes a violation of the principle under SDG 16 aims of justice and the elimination of violent actions. Moreover, it establishes the pressing need for an effective legal reform agenda to tackle the phenomenon of communal violence restore society’s confidence, and ensure the other community’s people also in the justice delivery system.15

1.5.3 Palghar Mob Lynching (2020)

Misleading information was also witnessed in the Palghar mob lynching that happened on the 16th of April 2020 in Maharashtra. Two sadhus and their driver were lynched by a mob while they thought that the former were child kidnappers. They blamed it on the lockdown exercises that have enhanced the circulation of rumors through social media platforms. Even though police personnel were present, the crowd turned violent becoming very hard to contain, resulting in loss of lives. 16 This case perfectly illustrates the risks of lack of centralized control over the news flow and the problem it creates for police work. This particular response from the government; where over 100 people have been arrested and a judicial inquiry has begun, underscores a realization of the state on the significance of the problem.

However, the occurrence of the event brought out the need to fix strong policies that would help eradicate fake news and conform to SDG 16 which deals with ‘Bow sustainable, peaceful societies achieve justice and accountability’ and effective institutions.

1.5.4 Lynching of Jagmael Singh (2019)

The lynching of Jagmael Singh, a Dalit man in Punjab’s Sangrur district on November 7, 2019, brought to the fore specificities of caste in Indian mob violence. Lynch was blamed for theft tied to a pole and beaten by a mob until dead and was buried in the ground. Caste discrimination

15 They Came, They Saw, They Lynched: A Glimpse into the Indian Mob Lynching Epidemic, available at:

https://www.berkeleyjournalofinternationallaw.com/post/they-came-they-saw-they-lynched-a-glimpse-intotheindian-mob-lynching-epidemic (Visited on December 18, 2024).

16 Zeeshan Shaikh, "Palghar Lynching: A Recap of What Happened", The Indian Express, April 24, 2020.

remained alive in the society, where Dalits faced the brunt of the violence that occurred in the incident.17 Looking from the legal angle, there were serious concerns about the lack of protection laws for caste violence. Indeed, sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Atrocities Act] were invoked, but a lack of timely police action and insufficient investigation exposed systemic lapses. This event shows the importance of SDG

10 of reducing inequality and ensuring equal protection under the law. It has also demanded

institutional measures against caste discrimination and the defense of constitutional principles of justice.

1.5.5 Lynching of Sabir Malik (2024)

The Charkhi Dadri district of Haryana showcased this fact once again when Sabir Malik was lynched on August 27, 2024, on suspicion of being a child lifter. The case of Malik, a ragpicker originally from West Bengal, who was imprisoned after he was lured into a shop under the coverage of selling empty plastic bottles. On reaching the place, the accused persons, namely Abhishek, Mohit, Ravinder, Kamaljit, and Sahil beat him mercilessly for another group accused him of taking beef. Despite the efforts of other people, the attackers moved Malik to a different area and continued to violent him, resulting in his death. Two others, who are minors were also arrested in connection to the incident. The Haryana Police lodged a case under substantive provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

Therefore, the BNS can deal with mob lynching issues; however, with an appropriate provision such as Section 103(2) of murder and other related offenses about mob violence. Still, the structural collapse in avoiding such mishaps in the first place, to say nothing of after successive judicial and legislative interventions, remains a worrying phenomenon. This case is more or less the social groups’ conflict of appeasing their perceived intolerance and communal polarization that characterizes mob lynching. It also brings out the probability of anyone being subjected to such an evil act especially the needy, and migrants respectively. 18

17 Special Correspondent, "Punjab Dalit Man Who Was Beaten Up and Forced to Drink Urine Succumbs to

Injuries", The Hindu, November 16, 2019. 18 Sunil Rahar, "Cow Vigilantes Lynch Migrant Worker in Haryana’s Charkhi Dadri, 7 Held", Hindustan Times, September 1, 2024.

This, despite clear guidelines such as in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India19 instructs the need for proper policing and public awareness campaigns. This violates SDG 10 which focuses on reduced inequalities and SDG 16 which advocates for peaceful, just, and inclusive societies. This also reminds me of the earlier ones like the Bhiwani killings of Junaid and Nasir in 2023 where cow vigilantism was done in which two persons were brutally killed. The role played by organizations of the right-wing, like the Bajrang Dal makes it even more difficult to counter mob lynching. The evasive nature of law enforcement agencies has also been revealed by the fact that it took the police many months to arrest Monu Manesar when he was charge-sheeted in the Bhiwani case.

All these cases were put together to establish the need for bringing more certainty in the legislation for the judiciary to act without delay and for the executive branches to take preventive measures to ensure that there is no massive mobilization of crowds and to ensure law and order in society.

1.5.6 Murder of Aryan Mishra (2024)

The gruesome killing of Aryan Mishra on 24 August in Haryana’s Faridabad district is part of the ongoing sociology animal lynching under the pretext of cow protection. Aryan, a 20yearold student, was shot dead after being chased for 29 kilometers by a group of cow vigilantes led by Anil Kaushik Cow Protection Task Force member of Faridabad. The local people viewing Aryan and his friends as the smugglers of cattle stopped their car with deadly consequences for Aryan. Even after being warned on a plethora of occasions that formations such as these pose a serious risk to civilians and are capable of carrying out extraneous activities sparked by sectarian and political prejudice, the event lifts the veil off the continued extrajudicial operations in the country.

20 This is one of the first few cases where the application of ‘Section 103(2)’ of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has been invoked which penalizes murder committed in five or more persons with the intention or belief that the person killed is outside their community, caste or religion. This provision substituted the vague ‘Section 302’ under the previous IPC which is another step towards bringing recognition for mob lynching as a separate offense. The

19 Supra note 2.

20 "Aryan Mishra Murder Case: Victim’s Friend Thought 'Cops Were Chasing' Them, Asked Brother to 'Step Up Accelerator'", Livemint, September 4, 2024.

complete charge sheet is 601 pages wherein along with Section 61(2) (criminal conspiracy), Section 238 (causing disappearance of evidence), etc. , new Sections have also been added which relate to unlawful assembly and sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC relating to rioting under the arms act. Reading the events that resulted in Aryan’s murder shows how self-styled cow vigilantes use brutal force. As per the investigation, the accused along with his four friends traveling in Duster stopped their vehicle and were confronted by Kaushik and his friends traveling in Swift having beacon. Killing Aryan: a chase happened, where Kaushik fired multiple rounds at the Duster, as the chase ended the constable died.

These killings, motivated by self-proclaimed animal protectors to perpetuate violence among vigilante groups to gain popularity among the mob groups insist on the importance of strict enforcement of the recently passed anti-mob lynching laws as well as the deconstruction of the existing eccentric vigilante network. Aryan’s death is an anti-human rights image of India’s adherence to SDG 16 which deals with the promotion of peaceful societies, justice, and strong institutions. The above case affirms the negligence of the authorities in halting groups engaging in extra-judicial actions, the absence of initiative in preventing vigilantism, and in delivering speedy justice to the aggrieved.

While there was a quick arrest of the accused there is more to it; social and political factors often justify such acts is the real concern of this matter as social and political aspects justify such calamities. This case also casts light on the excess of authority by the vigilant group like another such incident as the Bhiwani killings and the Sabir Malik lynching. The pronouncement of “Section 103(2)” in the case of Aryan is a good example of how the BNS can be used to fight mob lynching. Nonetheless, the realization of these provisions in the current context needs appropriate law enforcement agencies, the judiciary system, and public resistance toward intolerance/communalism. The death of Aryan is a painful lesson that there is a widening gulf between the law on the books and the law in action in India which needs to be closed to ensure the rule of law and human rights. 1. 6

JUDICIAL DIRECTIVES TO ADDRESS MOB LYNCHING

The Supreme Court directions contained in Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India21, contain the following directives which give a comprehensive legal regime for dealing with the menace

21 (2018) 9 SCC 744.

of mob lynching and the measures contained in it are preventive, remedial and punitive. It shows that the strategy adopted by all stakeholders has a multifaceted approach including administrative accountability, increasing public awareness, and speedy trials.

1.6.1 Preventive Measures

Appointing nodal police officers and identifying lynching-sensitive zones establish focal points for surveillance and management. Actions such as suggesting that the government issue directions to disperse mobs before they form, censor social media content, and use public communication systems to stress the cost of mob action all reflect the Court’s perception of the value of preventive measures.

1.6.2 Remedial Actions

The provision of an opportunity for funding of victims’ compensation and the guaranteeing of non-interference with the victims’ families can be considered as the principles of restorative justice. This step connects the two; the institutional responsibility towards victims and their need for justice.

1.6.3 Punitive Guidelines

Swift trials, long harsh terms, and punishments for reckless officials’ purposes are intended to prevent similar accidents and ensure legal conformity. The maximum sentence signal ensures that, and fixing liability on law enforcement officers preserves institutional-role integrity.

1.7 ANALYSIS OF ANTI-MOB LYNCHING LAWS IN ACHIEVING SDG 10 AND SDG 16

The recent passage of the anti-mob lynching laws in India can be seen as a progression towards compliance of domestic laws to the intent of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) about the Tenth and Sixteenth goals which speak of reduction of inequalities and progressive promotion of viable societies. Although subsequent ‘legal reforms’ like the passage of new laws, including ‘Section 103(2)’ in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 have strengthened the legal fight against mob violence, whether such goals can be achieved through such measures needs to be further examined. In this section, the effectiveness or otherwise of these provisions in advancing equality and social justice, and at the same time enhancing

institutional responsiveness and stability, is considered.22

1.7.1 Effectiveness of Legal Provisions

The provisions of some sections to prevent anti-mob lynching in BNS show that there is some recognition of the heightened and different character of mob violence in the country. Thus, provisions such as “Section 103(2)” of the bill qualify lynching as a group crime built on principles like caste or community or a particular person’s belief system to mitigate specific social-political purposes of certain offenses. These laws prevent people by setting severe penalties that include life imprisonment, and the death penalty in the worst cases thus showing how strongly the state frowns at mob lynching. However, deterring offenders through these provisions depends on their vigorous enforcement to deter offenders. There are still crucial barriers specifically capturing delayed investigations, intimidated witnesses, and systemic biases slowing down their applicability.

For instance, in the Pehlu Khan lynching case all accused while there was video evidence all accused were let off due to legal technicalities and lack of concrete evidence. They give the impression that antilynching laws are but mere paper tigers and serve the evil purpose of encouraging the implementers to go on the rampage, therefore there is every need for sound investigation methods and procedural justice. Besides this, there is often no extensive data available on the incidence of mob lynching, which hinders enforcement because targeted policy responses and appropriate resource allocations cannot be made.

1.7.2 Role in Reducing Inequalities (SDG 10)

Mob lynching is a serious form of violence targeting minorities consisting of the Dalits, Muslims, and tribes; this makes it a huge setback towards achieving the intent of SDG 10 targeting inequality. Legal protection of vulnerable groups: The atrocities that have been cases handled by the CBI court are indeed egregious – The anti-mob lynching laws help provide legal protection to vulnerable groups as they address crimes that are caste, religion-based, and otherwise. For instance, “Section 103(2)” makes addresses violence committed by mobs in groups and against person or groups based on their identity hence enhancing the provision of Articles 14 and 15 of the constitution on equality.

22 Shivani Dubey, Neha Malik, "Mob Lynching - A Growing Menace", 13 SA 287 (2019).

Access to justice and legal literacy are important elements of the process and applying measures that focus on the role of the victim – compensation mechanisms and the introduction of fast-track trials – increases the chances that disadvantaged social groups will be able to participate in this process. Legal assertions in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India23 highlight the importance of accountability and stress their commitment that the state should ensure the rights of vulnerable groups and provide them equal justice. However, this cannot be accomplished without more significant attention to policy by reducing systematic factors like socio-economic factors that continue to exclude the disaffected communities from accessing justice.

Improving the provision of legal aid services in cases and focusing on community programs can also improve the work of anti-mob lynching laws in addressing inequalities and exclusion.

1.7.3 Contribution to Peaceful and Inclusive Societies (SDG 16)

The relevance of the new anti-mob lynching laws is also obvious to meet SDG 16, which emphasizes the fight against violence and the development of institutions and means of improving social justice. The laws targeting mob violence help in the reduction of deaths concerning violence, life, and liberty thus making the constitutional provision of Article 21 achievable. Such provisions as these could be seen when ‘Section 103(2)’ was used in the case of the Faridabad student murder and others, to affirm that these provisions are capable of bringing the culprits to book and afford justice for victims. SDG 16 can only be achieved if there is development of responsible and inclusive institutions and the particular aspect of enforcing anti-mob lynching laws can be a part of this process. Mentioned measures including nodal officers as proposed in the case of Tehseen S.

Poonawalla and fast track courts, raise the stock of institutional response to mob violence further. Nevertheless, recent despised crimes, including the Palghar lynching and Sabir Malik murder, pinpoint the need for systematic changes to enhance the provisions of law and enforcement as well as judicial systems. Media sensitivity public health programs and people-empowerment programs are just as important to addressing radicalization and dissemination of hatred and fear as to treating the symptoms and curbing large-scale acts of violence. 24

23 Supra note 2.

24 Astha Trivedi, "Mob Lynching in India: Legal Protection is Need of Hour", 5 IJLMH 229 (2022).

1.8

CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS

Despite protection against anti-mob lynching has gradually become part of India’s legal institution, there are critiques, gaps, and constraints that affect its effectiveness. All these problems are due to reinforced social discrimination, bad enforcement, and loose/no laws and therefore it hinders the law from providing justice and ending mobocracy. Exploring these problems about case laws and statute laws brings out incremental complexities that hinder the formulation of an effective solution to the menace of mob lynching.

1.8.1 Societal Attitudes and Prejudices

One of the most profound issues with dealing with the phenomenon of mob lynching is systemic prejudice in society and above all communal and caste prejudices. Strikingly, the crimes often are rarely unprovoked but are highly pre-meditated acts abetted by the social and cultural prejudices against a particular community including Dalits, Muslims, and tribals. Such biases not only justify the misdemeanors of the offenders but also inform the reception of such offenses as well as the societal reaction towards the offenders. For instance, Pehlu Khan was lynched in 2017 and the issue was found to have a communal facet since the man was killed on an unproved allegation of the crime of smuggling cows. Saying that he had proper documents for transporting cattle, he was brutally assaulted by so called cow protectors.

Such actions normalize extra-judicial killings and such acts, typically in the name of defending cultural or religious practices, set the stage where mob lynching is implicitly endorsed or encouraged in some circles. This may no longer only prevent justice from being done but also contribute to a culture of violence and hatred toward people of specific community or group. Further, casteist prejudices are also found in quite several mob lynchings, such as the lynching of Jagmael Singh, a Dalit man in Punjab. These examples show that caste and social and economic vulnerabilities work hand in hand to worsen the exclusion of some groups. Eradicating such societal attitudes needs a call to go to more than just the law; instead, it calls for persistent campaigns to create awareness, tolerance, and respect of constitutional provisions

on equal rights and non-discrimination. 25

1.8.2 Enforcement Issues

The lack of effective enforcement mechanisms that include police responsibility and failure in their procedure also denies an effective solution to mob lynching by use of the law. Most often they are too slow or simply do not act at all because of institutional prejudices or threats of reprisals from the authorities. It is regrettable that nobody seems to be held to account for this, and that consequently, members of the public lose confidence in our justice system and become easy prey to drunken, armed robber groups. These enforcement issues can well be illustrated by the Tabrez Ansari lynching case. Nonetheless, due to the video record of the attack and evident police failure to ensure that the victim was taken for medical care on time, the investigation was characterized by sluggishness and demotion of charges.

Such procedural failures not only allow perpetrators to escape punishment but deprive the victims of justice, and reduce the specific preventive impact of laws against lynching. Besides, the mentions of witnesses are rare or nonexistent due to threats, and, as a result, mob lynching cases have low conviction rates due to the already-mentioned investigative challenges. This study has therefore identified the following as key challenges that need to be addressed to improve the police force; To overcome these challenges there is a need to enhance police accountability and reinforce the investigation apparatus’ of the police force. This involves executive direction of Supreme Court guidelines in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India26 which addresses the set-up of nodal officers and special teams geared towards curbing mob violence.

This makes training programs that would enable law enforcement personnel to appreciate the socio-political aspects of mob lynching also play a significant role in enhancing enforcement results.

1.8.3 Legal Ambiguities and Loopholes

Although there are various unconditional provisions of particular anti-mob lynching provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, some of them have shortcomings and some other

25 Ishita Kohli, "Mob Lynching in India: Is the Government Doing Enough?", 4 IJLLR 1 (2023).

26 Supra note 2.

potential loopholes. For example, while the understanding of mob lynching that has been provided under “Section 103(2)” of the BNS is far more detailed and worded; it is possible that it may again be misunderstood or misused to serve certain predetermined agendas. Hence, there is the likelihood of difficulty in proving intent, especially by the accused persons in cases where it is characterized by caste, community, or personal belief. Furthermore, the lack of a standardized form of paying damages to victims and their kin makes the measures of justice protracted and unequal. However, several states including Rajasthan and Manipur have made laws against mob lynching accompanied by provisions for compensation to the victims; however, there is no central policy that addresses this problem and this leads to inequality.

Moreover, the prescriptive processes of “Section 103(2)” that addresses group responsibility might hinder charges, especially in situations where so many people come together in large and formless gangs. Another important aspect of misuse can be seen in the attempts to politicize mob lynching cases: accusations are regularly used to target particular individuals or groups for political reasons. This erodes the confidence in the legal systems and deviates from the overarching goal of tackling mob justice so rampant in society. To resolve these legal uncertainties there needs to be a persistent process of sustained reform of the statutes and there should be preparations for the equal enforcement of these regulations across the board. 27

1.9 CONCLUSION

Mob lynching in India continues to persist as a major violation of the principles of the rights to access justice, non-discrimination as well as human dignity. The continued occurrence of such occurrences does not justify the progressive legal changes like the passing of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 which has separate provisions to handle mob violence such as Section 103(2) but there are societal and system problems that continue to exist. This study proves that the anti-mob lynching legislative instrument is a prerequisite for the fight against this form of cruelty: its application is dependent on the processes of distinguishing societal discrimination, police inadequacies, and legal loopholes that contribute to the continuation of

27 Misria Shaik Ali, "A Loophole in BNS, Enough to Bury the Lynched Muslim Bodies", available at:

https://maktoobmedia.com/opinion/a-loophole-in-bns-enough-to-bury-the-lynched-muslim-bodies/ (Visited on December 18, 2024).

this terroristic phenomenon. The representation of mob lynching both in the historical and current juncture of Indian society supports the exploration of mob lynching about caste, religious prejudice, and economic jeopardy. This excludes marginalized groups like the Dalit, Muslims, and other tribal for which mob violence thwarts the attainment of sustainable development goal 10 on reduced inequalities. Under the BNS legal provisions, another compelling tool exists to deal with the crimes committed based on caste or community discrimination. All the same, the failure to apply these laws and regulations with vigor and equality reduces their ability to eliminate structural disparities. This study shows that Pehlu Khan and Tabrez Ansari's lynching cases expose loopholes in the system of investigation, prosecution, and judicial mechanisms.

Likewise, preventable deaths through mob lynching undermine India’s obligation to the facet of SDG 16 (Peace Justice and Strong Institutions) as it promotes the policy of lawlessness and chaos leading to institutional anarchy. Ensuring compliance with provisions made against mob lynching again is the need to regain public faith in the enforcement of the law. Decisions of the judiciary which include Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India28, the guidelines are elaborate for the preventable, treatable, and penal measures against mob violence. However, acute disparities exist between these general directives and daily practices, which has to do with the realities of institutional capabilities for implementation and responsibility.

For example, the inability to preemptively flag high-risk environments for lynching or control hate speech resulting in preventable deaths, as well as the lack of witness shielding mechanisms has encouraged continued occurrences of the same. There is still social acceptance of mob violence, the politics of caste and communalism, and fake news that continue to reign unchecked in India. Lynching and murder incidents like the Palghar lynching mob, and the murder of Aryan Mishra all point to how misinformation and vigilante networks are cultivated to spread violence. To rectify these fundamental causes, a legal and social change supported by all the stakeholders including legal departments, educational institutions, and other organizations, is needed. Nevertheless, Section 103(2) and Section 117(4) of the BNS need to be coupled with effective enforcement, awareness creation,

28 Supra note 2.

and sensitization of the Indian population on intolerance. As much as anti-mob lynching laws are a potential positive reform, these determine their success in addressing the problem a question of how the laws’ adoption and enforcement will be achieved. This calls for reforms in policing enforcement strategies, a judicial system where issues are either delayed or dropped appropriately enhanced penalties. Besides, it is also important to support and protect the rights of minorities, including through legal aid, compensation, and the fast-track courts that might augment justice for them, as provided under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.

Finally, it can be argued that the fight against mob lynching in India is not only the responsibility of the legislature, but of society as a whole, aimed at protecting and enforcing the principles of the Constitution that can guarantee justice, equality, and fraternity. Linking anti-lynching with the SDGs of social justice, focus on reduced inequality, and peace, outlined in SDG 10 and SDG 16 established a practical framework for a society of equity and no violence. But all these ideals entail continued sustained efforts to fundamentally transform the system, to build new institutions, and to foster respect for rights and the rule of law.

1.10 SUGGESTIONS

To effectively address the pervasive issue of mob lynching and align legal measures with the principles of SDG 10 and SDG 16, the following targeted suggestions aim to enhance the existing framework and mitigate systemic challenges:

1. Establish a centralized anti-mob lynching task force to monitor incidents nationwide

and ensure uniform implementation of laws under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). This task force should also be responsible for collecting and analyzing data on mob violence to inform policy decisions.

2. Strengthen witness protection programs to encourage individuals to testify in mob

lynching cases without fear of reprisal. This includes implementing secure relocation measures and ensuring confidentiality throughout judicial proceedings.

3. Launch national public awareness campaigns to counteract misinformation that often

incites mob violence. These campaigns should focus on promoting communal harmony and debunking fake news circulated through social media platforms.

4. Mandate the appointment of nodal officers in all districts, as directed by the Supreme

Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India29, to oversee preventive measures against mob lynching. These officers must identify high-risk areas and coordinate with local law enforcement to preempt potential incidents.

5. Integrate anti-mob lynching training modules into police and judicial training programs

to sensitize officials to the socio-political dimensions of such violence. Training should emphasize unbiased investigations and the importance of timely interventions.

6. Establish fast-track courts dedicated to mob lynching cases to expedite trials and reduce

delays in justice delivery. These courts should prioritize cases involving marginalized communities to address systemic inequalities in judicial outcomes.

7. Amend the provisions of the BNS to include mandatory compensation schemes for

victims and their families in mob lynching cases. Compensation should be promptly disbursed and linked to rehabilitation programs for affected individuals.

8. Regulate digital platforms more effectively by imposing stringent penalties on social

media companies for failing to curb the spread of hate speech and false information. Collaboration with technology experts to develop algorithms for detecting and flagging incendiary content is essential.

9. Foster community engagement programs that involve local leaders, civil society

organizations, and educational institutions in promoting social inclusivity. These initiatives should focus on addressing deep-rooted caste and communal prejudices that fuel mob violence.

10. Introduce legislative measures that criminalize the glorification of mob violence and

vigilante acts, including public celebrations of lynching incidents. This should be coupled with stringent enforcement to ensure accountability for individuals or groups inciting such behavior.

29 Supra note 2.