Mob Vigilantism & Violence Must Be Prevented: Allahabad High Court Slams UP Govt Over Supreme Court’s Directions On Mob Lynching

The Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government with regard to the directions of the Supreme Court on mob lynching.

The Lucknow Bench was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition filed by an accused seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 3, 5A, and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary remarked, “Mob vigilantism and mob violence are to be prevented by the Governments by taking strict action and by the vigil society who ought to report such incidents to the State machinery and the police instead of taking the law and order into their own hands.”

The Bench said that despite directions being issued about seven years back, yet it is not known as to what action has been taken by the State Government for following the directions as issued by the Apex Court.

“… the cases pertaining to vigilantism still continue to see the light of the day”, it added.

Advocate Ravendra Pratap Singh appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while AGA appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

As per the contention of the counsel, the Petitioner-accused was the owner of a Bolero Pickup and the said vehicle was usually driven by his driver. In March this year, his driver had taken the vehicle but did not return back. Subsequently, the accused came to know about the FIR being registered. It was further contended that based on the said FIR, the accused was harassed by the Respondents. As per the FIR, an information was received by the Sub-Inspector that some progeny of the cow was taken from the side of Amethi to Pratapgarh by two persons.

He also received information that the said progeny of the cow was taken for slaughter. The Complainant along with other police personnel and informant started observing the vehicles coming from the side of Amethi. They noticed one Pickup vehicle and allegedly, driver of the vehicle noticing the police personnel, stopped the vehicle at some distance and the occupants of the said vehicle ran away. Upon checking, it was noticed that the progeny of the cow was loaded. There were allegedly nine progeny of the cow in total and thus, FIR was registered.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “Once, prima facie the petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and was neither the driver nor a person in the said vehicle consequently, prima facie it cannot be said that any offence under Section 11 of the Act, 1960 are attracted against the petitioner. … Considering the aforesaid, a prima facie case for interference is made out.”

The Court directed that until further Order of the Court, no coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioner in pursuance to the impugned First Information Report (FIR).

“The matter might have ended at this stage requiring the respondents to file a counter affidavit. However, the matter cannot be treated to be so simple inasmuch as this Court is deluged with such matters on the basis of First Information Reports being filed left and right by the authorities and complainants under the provisions of the Act, 1955”, it said.

The Court noted that the progeny of the cow has been found to be alive yet the FIR has been lodged under the provisions of Sections 3/5 (A) & 8 of the Act, 1955.

“From a perusal of Section 3 of the Act, 1955 it is apparent that where a person either slaughters or causes to be slaughtered or offers or causes to be offered for slaughter a cow, bull or bullock, then he would be liable for the penalty as provided under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 meaning thereby that as per definition given in Section 2(d)of the Act, 1955, killing by any method including maiming and inflicting of physical injury which in ordinary course will cause death is a sine qua non for invocation of Section 3 of the Act, 1955”, it added.

The Court remarked that the provisions of the Act, 1955 are being invoked against persons throughout the State in casual manner and the fact that the Court is deluged with such Petitions being filed repeatedly, the Principal Secretary (Home) as well as the Director General of Police shall file their personal affidavits indicating as to why such casual FIRs are being filed against persons left and right which has resulted in various Petitions being filed even though the provisions of the Act, 1955 are not attracted.

“Once the law in this regard has been laid down more than six decades back by this Court in the case of Parasram Ji (supra) which would have applicability through the State as such, there cannot be any occasion of the authorities who are responsible for ensuring the law and order and their subordinates to have such casual First Information Reports being filed under the provisions of the Act, 1955”, it further said.

Conclusion

The Court was of the view that once the directions of the Apex Court are to the State Government, consequently, a Government Order should have been issued in this regard which should reflect the official decision, policy or administrative directions of the Government inasmuch as the Government Order is an expression of the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.

“Accordingly, prima facie the circular as issued by the Director General of Police does not conform to the direction as issued by the Apex Court. Thus, while filing the personal affidavit, it would also be indicated as to action which has been taken by the State Government pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla (supra)”, it also observed.

The Court concluded that the personal affidavits would indicate that in case such frivolous cases continue to come to the highest Court of the State as to why exemplary cost should not be imposed against the authorities who have not applied their mind while lodging the FIRs under the Act, 1955.

Accordingly, the High Court listed the case on November 7, 2025.

Cause Title- Rahul Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9567 of 2025)

Click here to read/download the Order