DGP's Circular Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Questions UP Govt's 'Inaction' On SC's Directions To Curb Mob Lynching

The Allahabad High Court has questioned the Uttar Pradesh Government over its apparent inaction in implementing the Supreme Court's binding directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) case, which had laid down preventive, remedial and punitive measures to curb mob lynching across the country. Observing that even seven years after those directions, there is no clarity on what action has been taken by the State, the Court said the circular issued by the Director General of Police (DGP) in July 2018 cannot substitute the Government's constitutional obligation to issue a formal Government Order (GO) reflecting its policy and administrative stance. "Strangely, despite aforesaid 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 aforesaid directions as issued by the Apex Court", the Court remarked, adding that "cases pertaining to vigilantism still continue to see the light of the day". The observations came from a bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, which was hearing a plea challenging an FIR lodged under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. While granting interim protection to the petitioner, the Court expanded its scrutiny to a larger systemic issue, the casual invocation of the Cow Slaughter Act and the State's failure to curb cow vigilantism despite Supreme Court directives. In its 17-page order, the Court said that despite clear law laid down more than six decades ago by the Allahabad High Court itself and reaffirmed by the Apex Court, police officers continue to file FIRs “left and right” under provisions of the 1955 Act, even in cases where no offence is made out.Read more about the observations of the HC here : 'Violence, Lynching & Vigilantism Order Of The Day': Allahabad High Court Slams Casual FIRs Under UP Cow Slaughter Act During the course of the hearing, when a member of the Bar placed before the Court a circular dated July 26, 2018, issued by the DGP, Uttar Pradesh, purportedly in compliance with the Tehseen Poonawalla judgment, the Court found the same to be prima facie not falling within the ambit of the Supreme Court's directions. The division bench reasoned that the apex court had specifically directed State Governments, not merely police departments, to take policy-level action against mob lynching and vigilantism. "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", the Bench observed. The Court emphasized that a Government Order carries the force of executive decision-making, unlike an internal circular. “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”, the order stated. Against this backdrop, the bench directed both the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police to file personal affidavits within three weeks explaining what concrete steps the State Government has taken pursuant to the Supreme Court's Tehseen Poonawalla directions; The Bench made it clear that if the affidavits are not filed within the stipulated period, both senior officers must appear in person before the Court with relevant records to assist it in the matter. The case will next be heard on November 7, 2025. For context, in Tehseen S. Poonawalla (2018), the Supreme Court had issued nationwide guidelines to curb mob lynching and vigilantism, directing each State to appoint nodal officers in every district, ensure swift investigation and trial and take strict disciplinary and legal action against erring officials. The Court had stressed that failure to prevent or respond to incidents of mob violence would constitute deliberate negligence or misconduct. These directions were later reaffirmed in Kodungallur Film Society v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 713 and National Federation of Indian Women v. Union of India (2025). High Court's order expressly referred to these judgments as it noted despite multiple reminders, mob vigilantism “still continues to see the light of the day.” In its order, the Court also expressed deep concern over the rise in cow vigilantism as it said that Violence, lynching and vigilantism is the order of the day.In related news, in February this year, the Supreme Court disposed of a PIL which raised the issue of cow vigilantism and mob attacks by stating that directions have already been issued against lynching and mob violence,The Court stated that the directions issued in its 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment are binding on all ...

DGP's Circular Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Questions UP Govt's 'Inaction' On SC's Directions To Curb Mob Lynching

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags