India News

UP Law Commission recommends law for lynchings providing up to life term

Published

7 years ago

July 12, 2019

UP Law Commission recommends law for lynchings providing up to life term

The Uttar Pradesh State Law Commission has drawn a draft legislation for combating mob lynching, recommending jail terms ranging from seven years to life imprisonment for assailants and up to three years for dereliction of duty by a police officer or district magistrate.

The draft law is part of a report based on a study undertaken suo motu by the Commission – the government had not commissioned it. The report along with the draft Bill was submitted to UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath on Wednesday, July 10, by State Law Commission Chairman Justice (retd) Aditya Nath Mittal, according to media reports.

In the introduction to the report, Justice Mittal noted that “one of the most stringing descriptions of the dangers of mob violence was Mark Twain’s response to a racial lynching in Missouri in 1901. He saw in it the danger of America turning into ‘United States of Lyncherdom’.” More than a century later, the secular Republic of India “appears to be amidst the shadow of a similar fear,” he said.

The 128-page report cited various cases of lynching in the state and recommended the immediate enactment of a law as per recommendations made by the Supreme Court in 2018.The report said only Manipur has made a special law against lynchings and, as per media reports, the Madhya Pradesh government is soon going to enact it.

The Supreme Court had in July 2018 issued a series of remedial and punitive measures to the Centre and state governments to curb mob lynching, demanding them to be implemented within four weeks.Noting that “mobocracy cannot be allowed in democracy”, the court had asked the governments to ensure that law and order is maintained. It had recommended the governments to enact a law that specifically addresses cases of lynching.

The UP State Law Commission’s report says the existing law is not sufficient to deal with mob lynchings and there is need for a law to not just punish the wrongdoers but also hold authorities responsible for dereliction of duty if such incidents take place under their watch.

Suggesting that such a law may be called the Uttar Pradesh Combating of Mob Lynching Act, the commission specified the responsibilities of police officers and district magistrates, spelling out the punishment for failing in their duty.

As per the available data from 2012 to 2019, 50 incidents of mob violence have taken place in the state.

Also Read: CBI raids senior advocates Indira Jaising, Anand Grover for FCRA violation

Of around 50 victims, 11 died. Twenty-five of these were cases of major assault, including those by cow vigilantes.

It referred to various cases of lynching and mob violence in the state, including the 2015 killing of Mohammed Akhlaq in Dadri on the suspicion of beef consumption.

It mentioned the killing of Inspector Subodh Singh on December 3, 2018, in a clash between police and Hindutva groups in Bulandshahr after cattle carcasses were found in a field.

The chairman noted that mobs were now turning on police as well. “Incidents of mob violence have taken place in districts of Farukkhabad, Unnao, Kanpur, Hapur and Muzaffarnagar. Police are also becoming victims as people have started thinking of them as their enemy,” Mittal said in the report.

“The killing of a head constable in Ghazipur and a jail warden are examples of this,” he said.

Underlining that mob lynching be made a separate offence to inculcate fear among miscreants, the commission’s draft law recommends stringent punishment:

* Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine up to Rs 1 lakh if the victim is injured.

* Imprisonment up to 10 years and fine up to Rs 3 lakh if victim suffers serious injuries.

* Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine up to Rs 5 lakh if the victim dies.

* Those involved in conspiracy, abetment be punished like those actually involved in lynching.

* In case of dereliction of duty by police officer or district magistrate, imprisonment of one year, which may be extended to three years and fine up to Rs 5000.

* Imprisonment of six months for contributing or enforcing a hostile environment.

The draft Bill defines “lynching”, “mob”, “victim” and “offensive material” as well as also “hostile environment” created against the victim or family, including boycott of trade, public humiliation, depriving fundamental rights, and forcing a person to leave home etc.

Also Read: Ayodhya case: Daily hearing in Supreme Court from July 25 if mediation efforts fail

To hasten the trial process, the report suggests that cases of mob lynching should be assigned to designated judges, who should conduct the trial on a priority basis.

The panel said the law should also provide for compensation to the family of the victim for grievous injury or loss of loss of life and property. There should also be provisions for the rehabilitation of the victims and their families, it said.

Sapna Tripathi, Secretary of the State Law Commission, told The Indian Express: “The commission realised that mob lynching is a global problem faced even by US, countries in Africa etc for long. Thus, the commission thought of undertaking a suo motu study in this regard about six months ago. We also took into account directions of the Supreme Court and High Courts in different cases.”

“The commission only recommends and proposes to state government, it is up to the state government to accept it or take it forward.” She said the commission’s next study is on “anti-conversion laws” related to conversion of religion for the purpose of marriage.

Up Next

Bail to Rahul Gandhi in defamation case by Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank

Don't Miss

CBI raids senior advocates Indira Jaising, Anand Grover for FCRA violation

India News

Gandhi Parivar vs Sangh Parivar, Revanth Reddy’s remark sparks BJP attack

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks contrasting the Gandhi Parivar with the Sangh Parivar triggered a BJP response accusing Congress of prioritising the Gandhi family.

Published

2 hours ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s remarks comparing the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar have triggered a political exchange, with the BJP hitting back at the Congress leader.

Speaking in Kerala on Friday, Mr Reddy described the contest over India’s future as a fight between the two “parivars”. He said the Gandhi family had made sacrifices for the country while accusing the Sangh Parivar of attempting to divide India on the basis of religion, caste, region and language.

What Revanth Reddy said

Mr Reddy cited Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi while speaking about what he described as sacrifices made by the Gandhi family.

He also referred to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi, saying they had given up positions, power and high office.

The Telangana Chief Minister said he had no remaining personal political ambitions and described his objective as working towards a Congress-led government at the Centre with Rahul Gandhi as Prime Minister.

Mr Reddy also appealed to people to stand with the Gandhi Parivar and oppose the Sangh Parivar. He described the latter as a threat to India’s democracy.

BJP hits back

The BJP responded to Mr Reddy’s remarks on Saturday.

BJP spokesperson Pradeep Bhandari said the Telangana Chief Minister’s comments amounted to an admission that Congress’s objective was to bring the Gandhi family back to power.

He also linked Mr Reddy’s remarks to the ongoing political debate around “vote chori”, the Election Commission, the Constitution and democracy, arguing that the Congress’s focus was instead on the Gandhi family.

The exchange adds to the political confrontation between the BJP and Congress, with Mr Reddy presenting the Gandhi Parivar and Sangh Parivar as opposing forces in India’s political future, while the BJP has interpreted his remarks as evidence of Congress’s focus on the Gandhi family.

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

9 hours ago

September 26, 2026

APNLive Desk

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

India News

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

22 hours ago

September 25, 2026

APNLive Desk

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.