Only 11 Mob Lynching Cases in 7 Years? Allahabad High Court Calls State Data ‘Prima Facie Incorrect’

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh government to give wide publicity to its 2018 Government Order on mob violence, lynching and vigilantism, as well as to the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, observing that official data placed before the court on such incidents appeared to be prima facie incorrect.

"Eleven cases in the previous seven years viz-a viz two cases which have come before this Court in the last one month prima facie appears to be incorrect and not indicating the correct figure," said the bench of Justices Abdul Moin and Rajeev Bharti.

Court issued the directions while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Rahul Yadav, in which issues relating to vigilantism and enforcement of the cow slaughter law came up for consideration. Court was examining compliance with its earlier order dated October 9, 2025, which had required senior State officials to file personal affidavits responding to specific queries raised by the bench.

During the hearing, the Additional Government Advocate informed the court that an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner under Sections 3, 5A and 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, and that the investigation was still underway. It was argued that since the probe had not concluded, the investigating officer was not precluded from adding further penal provisions or deleting existing sections if the facts so warranted.

The State also placed reliance on a Government Order dated August 28, 2018, which lays down guidelines for dealing with incidents of mob violence, lynching and vigilantism. Referring to a chart annexed with the personal affidavit of the Director General of Police, the Additional Government Advocate submitted that only eleven cases of mob lynching had been reported in Uttar Pradesh since the issuance of the said Government Order.

However, the bench expressed reservations about the accuracy of this data. Without making any final observation on the chart, court noted that two separate cases involving vigilantism had already engaged its attention in the previous month alone. In one of those cases, vigilantes were alleged to have taken away the petitioner’s car, while in another, a tractor trolley loaded with cattle progeny was allegedly seized by private individuals. In this backdrop, the Court observed that eleven cases over a span of seven years, as claimed by the State, prima facie did not appear to reflect the correct position.

Court also considered the State’s submission regarding Clause 10 of the 2018 Government Order, under which victims of mob violence and lynching are entitled to compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, as amended in 2016. The scheme mandates that compensation be granted within thirty days, in line with directions issued by the Supreme Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India.

At the same time, the bench took note of Clause 6 of the Government Order, which requires the State to give wide publicity through radio, television, digital platforms and the official website of the Home Department, informing the public that incidents of vigilantism and mob violence would invite strict action. Court observed that the personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Home) did not disclose whether any such publicity exercise had actually been undertaken.

In view of these aspects, court held that it was expedient for the State government to ensure that both the Government Order dated August 28, 2018, and the Victim Compensation Scheme are widely publicised. The bench directed that these be prominently published on the front pages of English and Hindi daily newspapers having wide circulation in Uttar Pradesh, at least once a week for four consecutive weeks.

The matter has now been listed for January 13, 2026. On the next date of hearing, the Principal Secretary (Home) has been directed to file a fresh personal affidavit detailing the steps taken to comply with the Court’s directions. The affidavit will also have to disclose whether any applications for compensation were received following the proposed publication, as well as the compensation granted in the eleven mob lynching cases referred to by the Director General of Police.

Case Title: Rahul Yadav vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Bench: Justices Abdul Moin and Rajeev Bharti