Allahabad High Court Doubts UP DGP's Claim That Only 11 Mob Lynching Cases Reported In State Since 2018

Observing that the figure "prima facie appears to be incorrect", a Division Bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Rajeev Bharti pointed out that the HC itself had dealt with two separate cases of a similar nature in October alone.

In the order passed last month, the Bench also directed the UP Government to publicise the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 and its Government Order of August 2018 regarding mob violence prominently on the front page of daily newspapers for 4 consecutive weeks.

For context, the HC is hearing a plea challenging an FIR lodged under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955.

In the month of October, the Court had taken serious note of the 'casual' manner in which police authorities are registering cases under the 1955 Act and the continuing menace of cow vigilantism in the state.

The Court had also directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police (DGP) to file their personal affidavits explaining why such FIRs are being lodged even though the provisions of the Act, 1955, are not attracted.

The bench had also sought affidavits on the issue as to why the State Government had not yet issued a formal Government Order in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) to curb mob violence and vigilantism.

Pursuant to the HC's order, on November 7, the Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Anurag Verma referred to a chart annexed with the DGP's affidavit to contend that only 11cases pertaining to mob lynching had been reported in the state since the issuance of the Government Order on August 28, 2018.

The Bench, however, refused to accept these figures at face value. In a sharp observation, the Court noted that it was left wondering about the statistics of the chart because two cases pertaining to vigilantism had been dealt with by it in October itself.

The division bench observed that in one of these instances, vigilantes had taken away the car of the petitioner. In the other, vigilantes had taken over a tractor-trolley loaded with progeny of the cow.

"Thus, 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," the Bench remarked.

During the hearing, the State relied on Clause 10 of the 2018 GO to submit that the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 (as amended on June 14, 2016), covers all cases of vigilantism and mob violence. The

The AGA argued that compensation in such cases is to be granted within 30 days, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Tehseen S. Poonawalla vs. Union of India (2018).

However, the HC noted that while Clause 6 of the GO mandates wide publicity by means of radio, television or other media platforms to inform the public that strict action would follow incidents of mob violence, the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary (Home) failed to indicate whether such publicity had actually been given to the GO.

Therefore, finding it expedient that the public be made aware of the strict action prescribed for mob violence and their right to claim compensation, the HC issued a mandamus for immediate publicity.

"Let the State Government publicize the said Government order and the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 as amended on 14.06.2016 prominently on the front page of the daily newspapers both English & Hindi having wide circulation in the State by publication at least once a week for at least four consecutive weeks," the Court ordered.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on January 13, 2026.

On the next date, the Principal Secretary (Home) will have to file a personal affidavit stating the action taken pursuant to this order.

Crucially, the affidavit must also disclose whether any fresh applications for compensation are received subsequent to the newspaper publications.

The State must also provide details regarding the compensation amount granted in the 11 admitted cases of mob lynching mentioned in the DGP's chart.

With respect to the FIR in the present case, lodged under the 1955 Act, the State submitted that the investigation is ongoing.

Background

Applicant-Yadav, the owner of a vehicle, stated that his driver took the vehicle on March 1, 2025 and did not return. Later, he learnt that an FIR had been registered after police allegedly found nine progeny of the cow tied in his vehicle, panting and bound by ropes.

However, the Court noted that no slaughter or maiming had taken place and that the animals were alive. It observed that there was no allegation of transportation outside Uttar Pradesh, which is a necessary condition for invoking Section 5-A of 1955 Act.

The Bench noted:

"Clearly, no offence is made out under Section 5-A of the Act, 1955. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner indulged in slaughtering of the progeny of the cow inasmuch as the progeny of the cow has been found alive. Thus, Sections 3 and 8 of the Act are also not attracted".

Similarly, since the petitioner was only the owner of the vehicle and not the driver, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was also found inapplicable to the facts of the case. The Court thus granted relief to the petitioner.

High Court's significant observations

In its order passed on October 9, the bench expressed grave concern over the sheer number of petitions flooding the Court where individuals are falsely implicated under the Cow Slaughter Act despite no slaughter, injury or interstate transportation being involved.

"The matter cannot be treated to be so simple", the Court said, adding "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".

Read our reports on the previous order of the HC here and here.