top of page


NAME OF THE PARTIES– Petitioner – Tehseen S. Poonawalla, Respondent – Union of India

CITATION– (2018) 9 SCC 501

DATE OF JUDGEMENT– 17 July, 2018

BENCH– Justice Deepak Mishra, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar


India has been dumfounded by a growing range of informal public executions or illegal killings unremarkably recognized by the term “Mob Lynching”. However, recently it's taken the shape of a plague potent enough to cause a collapse in our law and order system. It has additionally resulted in a heightened sense of insecurity among the general public. under the agreement theory, it's the principal duty of a state to guard the basic rights of its voters. The terribly existence of phenomena like mob slaying challenges the authority of the state as well as casts a shadow on the justice system. so as to tackle this circumstance, the Supreme Court passed a series of preventive, remedial and punitory measures during this landmark case of Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of Republic of India (UOI) and Ors.


After a spate of incidents of slaying in Dadri, Jharkhand and more by cow protection teams, distressed activists filed writ petitions in the Apex Court.

Tehseen Poonawalla, a social activist, filed a writ petition under Art. thirty-two of the Constitution against the Respondent States.

Tushar Gandhi filed the second PIL to initiate State responsibility for such mob incidents.

The petitions were heard by a 3 judge bench.


Whether immediate and necessary actions ought to be taken by the states and Centre against the cow protection teams for wallowing in violence?

Whether the Centre and states should issue a further writ to get rid of all the violent content announced on social media by these cow protection groups?

Whether few provisions of animal protection laws like Section twelve of the Gujarat Animal prevention Act, 1954, Section thirteen of the Maharashtra Animal prevention Act, 1976, and Section fifteen of the state prevention of Cow Slaughter and cattle Preservation Act, 1964 are unconstitutional?


The petitioners contended that no individual ought to get involved in an activity like mob murder on the basis of a mere perception that a criminal offense had taken place.

It was additionally determined that one amongst the massive reasons of those activities associated with mob violence, is spread of faux news and false data concerning the victim that they were involved in some extra-legal activities of mercantilism of cattle, cow slaughter, etc.

It was further contended, that it's the responsibility of the central government to issue directions to the state governments under Article 256 and 257 of the Constitution of India.


Mr. Ranjit Kumar, solicitor general, submitted that the Union of India doesn't support vigilantes and these incidents were a State matter.

The State of Gujarat and Jharkhand submitted that apt legal action had already been undertaken against the persons concerned in these incidents.


The judgement was delivered by CJI Deepak Mishra, that no individual can take law into his/her own hands. Interim orders were issued for main road patrolling and for the appointment of Nodal officers. Court aforementioned that the mob murder could be a serious violation of Article twenty-one of the Indian Constitution and isn't acceptable.

Certain guidelines were issued to curb mob violence-

Preventive Measures: Nodal officers ought to be appointed by the state government, directions for the appointment and working were given. The central and the state government ought to strive their best to prevent the spread of false data and should make folks aware of the results of wallowing in activities like these. it had been additionally directed that police ought to file FIR under Section 153A of IPC, and mobs ought to be dispersed under Section 129 of CrPc.

Punitive Measures: departmental inquiry should be initiated against the officers who are negligent concerning their tasks or shows misconduct in the same, and this inquiry ought to reach to its conclusion within a time-frame of six months.

Remedial Measures: Free legal aid ought to be provided to the victim or to the families affected, FIRs ought to be filed straightaway and the proceedings ought to be within the fast track courts so the procedure becomes less time consuming and more practical.

The issue of constitutional validity of certain sections of cow protection acts and should dealt by the court.


No matter what, a private citizen shouldn’t be allowed to take justice in his own hands. Incidents like mob murder is a slam on the faces of legal fraternity and system of India. The Supreme Court set down strict guidelines to deal with these issues, however still its implementation is that the issue of concern for our government. we've seen that Anti-lynching bills are passed by the govt of Manipur and Rajasthan, however these bills are still awaiting the consent of the President. Mob violence is a problem of great concern, particularly in past few years, when India witnessed communal and spiritual unrest. There ought to be no tolerance against such brutal and inhuman activities.

This article is written by Vaibhavi Vora of Pravin Gandhi College Of Law, Mumbai.

Recent Posts

See All


1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: Parmanand Katara, Human Rights Activist RESPONDENT: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Medical Council, India


Post: Blog2 Post
Anchor 1
bottom of page