In a significant development concerning communal violence and rule of law, the Allahabad High Court addressed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, a prominent Muslim organization, which sought the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s directives against mob lynching issued in the landmark Tehseen S. Poonawalla judgment. The petition revolved around a series of mob lynching incidents that had occurred in Uttar Pradesh, most notably in the Aligarh and Moradabad districts, where individuals from minority communities were allegedly targeted by mobs based on their religious identity. The petitioner claimed that despite the Supreme Court laying down comprehensive guidelines to prevent, investigate, and punish acts of mob lynching, the state government of Uttar Pradesh had failed to implement these measures in letter and spirit. Consequently, the petitioners urged the High Court to intervene and direct the state to fulfill its constitutional and statutory obligations.
The PIL brought to the court’s attention various lynching incidents, alleging inaction or inadequate response by law enforcement authorities. In particular, the petition cited a brutal assault in Aligarh, where a mob allegedly dragged out and beat members of a specific community, causing serious injuries and fear among residents. The petitioner emphasized that such incidents, rather than being isolated, had become disturbingly frequent and pointed to a systemic failure on the part of the authorities to take deterrent and preventive action. The PIL therefore demanded strict enforcement of the Supreme Court's preventive and remedial measures, including appointment of district-level nodal officers to monitor and prevent mob lynchings, prompt registration of FIRs, timely investigation and prosecution of offenders, creation of special courts for lynching cases, and payment of adequate compensation to victims or their families.
A significant part of the PIL revolved around the state's obligation to implement the directions laid down in the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, where the Supreme Court had issued a broad framework to tackle the menace of mob violence. These included preventive measures like police patrolling in sensitive areas, awareness campaigns against mob vigilantism, and sensitization of law enforcement agencies. On the remedial side, the judgment required the state to ensure prompt and impartial investigation of lynching incidents and to provide legal aid, rehabilitation, and compensation to victims. The punitive aspect included taking disciplinary action against police officers or administrative officials who failed to prevent such incidents or showed dereliction of duty. The petitioner contended that the state of Uttar Pradesh had either failed to implement these directions altogether or had done so in a superficial and ineffective manner.
In response to these submissions, the Allahabad High Court took a nuanced view. The division bench, comprising Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena, acknowledged the gravity of the issue and the binding nature of the Supreme Court's directives. The judges noted that mob lynching, especially when motivated by identity factors like religion or caste, is antithetical to constitutional values such as dignity, equality, and fraternity. However, the Court also observed that the PIL in its current form sought sweeping directions covering a wide spectrum of incidents across the entire state. It emphasized that the PIL mechanism should not be converted into a generalized monitoring tool for all lynching cases, especially when each incident involves specific factual contexts and distinct legal and investigative aspects.
The Court further noted that the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment already provides a self-contained mechanism that can be implemented without continuous judicial monitoring unless there is a demonstrated failure in a particular instance. The judges observed that the judiciary cannot micromanage the executive's functioning through blanket PILs, and directed that aggrieved persons in individual incidents should first approach the appropriate government authorities for redress. Only if the authorities fail to act, should the affected parties move the courts. This procedural clarification, according to the Court, was necessary to maintain the balance between judicial oversight and executive responsibility.
Despite declining to entertain the petition in its entirety as a PIL for ongoing state-wide monitoring, the High Court made it clear that it would continue to examine individual cases where the state was suspected to have failed in complying with Supreme Court-mandated safeguards. In this context, the Court is already seized of another matter concerning the mob lynching of one Shahedeen Qureshi in Moradabad. In that case, it was alleged that the deceased was attacked by a mob for allegedly stealing a fan, and the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by police did not mention provisions specific to mob lynching. The petitioner alleged that the FIR was filed under general murder provisions, thereby obscuring the communal and collective nature of the attack. Furthermore, it was claimed that the police had failed to arrest the real perpetrators and that officials had delayed legal proceedings in order to shield the accused.
Taking serious note of these allegations, the Court asked the state government to file a detailed affidavit explaining the steps taken under the Supreme Court’s framework. This included disclosure of whether district-level nodal officers had been appointed, whether special or fast-track courts had been established, and whether adequate compensation had been given to the victim’s family. It also questioned whether the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code and included specific sections for mob lynching, had been invoked. The Court temporarily stayed the continuation of the investigation under the current FIR, holding that it would examine whether the investigation was being carried out in accordance with the Supreme Court's guidelines.
In both the PIL and the Moradabad case, the High Court strongly reiterated the binding nature of the Supreme Court's judgment. It expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of institutional compliance and called for the submission of affidavits by senior state officials rather than by investigating officers alone. The Court underscored that compliance reports must be filed by the Home Secretary or the Additional Chief Secretary, and must be comprehensive in addressing the specific directives from the apex court. It was not enough, the Court implied, to claim general adherence to law and order principles; the state had to prove implementation of concrete measures, such as district-wise deployment of nodal officers, statistical data on lynching cases, their trial status, compensation disbursement, and whether any police officials had been subjected to disciplinary action for negligence.
The judicial response reveals a pattern: while the High Court refuses to become a general supervisory authority over executive actions in mob violence cases, it remains firm in its resolve to scrutinize individual cases where justice appears compromised. The Court’s orders reflect a balance between constitutional oversight and procedural restraint, ensuring that judicial intervention is targeted, effective, and in line with the foundational principles of justice. The judges also underscored the need for the government to educate the public about the dangers of mob violence, a mandate that was clearly specified in the Supreme Court's original directives. Awareness campaigns, community engagement, and media dissemination of anti-lynching messages were deemed essential components of a comprehensive strategy.
What emerges from the Allahabad High Court’s deliberations is a layered approach to addressing mob lynching. On the one hand, it respects the institutional boundaries between the judiciary and the executive, cautioning against turning the court into a monolithic oversight body. On the other hand, it makes it clear that failure to follow Supreme Court orders, particularly in relation to communal or identity-based violence, will invite stringent scrutiny. By demanding concrete evidence of compliance—such as detailed affidavits, district-wise data, and case-specific information—the Court has sent a strong message to the state government that merely claiming adherence to law is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated with actions, transparency, and accountability.
Moreover, the Court’s decision to separately monitor individual cases rather than consolidate them under a single PIL signifies an important judicial strategy. Each incident of lynching involves distinct social, legal, and administrative contexts. Treating them individually ensures that due process is followed, facts are examined in detail, and accountability is specifically enforced. This approach prevents dilution of responsibility and allows for sharper focus on administrative lapses. It also reinforces the principle that justice must be tailored to the facts of each case, rather than applied through a broad, generalized lens.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court's ruling in response to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind’s PIL exemplifies the role of the judiciary as a guardian of constitutional values, particularly in the context of social harmony, minority rights, and the right to life and dignity. It reflects a sober recognition of the dangers posed by mob vigilantism and the necessity of strict institutional mechanisms to curb it. At the same time, it upholds procedural discipline, reminding petitioners that the courts are not the first line of response and that executive machinery must be engaged first. Where the executive fails, the judiciary will intervene—but with caution, specificity, and a deep sense of constitutional responsibility.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.