The Allahabad High Court has sharply reprimanded the Uttar Pradesh government for its failure to rein in mob violence under the garb of “cow protection”, warning that unchecked vigilantism poses a grave threat to the rule of law. A bench led by Justices Abdul Moin and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary directed top state officials to explain in personal affidavits why action has not been taken against those filing frivolous First Information Reports and why a formal government order has not been issued to curb such abuses of law.
The order emerged during scrutiny of a petition by Rahul Yadav, who had challenged an FIR filed under the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court noted that in Yadav’s case, the animals involved were alive, there was no allegation of interstate transport, and no slaughter had occurred—yet coercive police action was threatened. The bench granted interim relief, restraining authorities from acting until further orders.
Beyond the particulars of the case, the court broadened its focus, characterising the problem as systemic. It expressed deep concern that police and complainants are lodging FIRs “left and right” without applying judicial or legislative standards. The sheer volume of petitions reaching the High Court indicates, the bench said, that the misuse is pervasive. It stressed that this kind of misuse fosters vigilantism: under the pretext of protecting cows, private citizens are emboldened to take the law into their own hands, turning public safety into a licence for extrajudicial aggression.
The bench referred to a case in which vigilantes had reportedly intercepted a car, and the vehicle subsequently disappeared, as evidence of the danger implicit in unbridled cow-protection zeal. “Violence, lynching and vigilantism is the order of the day,” the court declared, linking the misuse of FIRs to a broader climate of lawlessness.
Importantly, the court criticised the state’s reliance on an internal police circular issued in 2018 in response to Supreme Court guidelines from the Tehseen S. Poonawalla judgment. While the circular was aimed at curbing mob violence, the bench held it is inadequate in the absence of a formal government order reflecting the executive’s policy stance. A directive confined to the police department cannot substitute for a full-fledged executive order under Article 162 of the Constitution, laying down policy, institutional procedures, and accountability mechanisms.
Referencing Supreme Court jurisprudence, the bench emphasised that compliance with the 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla judgment and its successors is mandatory. Those judgments require states to appoint nodal officers for lynching cases, ensure speedy trials, enforce departmental accountability for erring officers, and adopt preventive measures. The High Court found that even seven years after the Supreme Court’s ruling, Uttar Pradesh has not shown clarity or evidence of implementation.
Cong CEC Seeks Clarity on Bihar Tickets As Alliances Strain 