‘Mob lynching grave threat’: Karnataka High Court orders drafting victim compensation scheme

“Mob lynching represents a grave threat to the rule of law, human rights, and social fabric, as it replaces legal justice with brutal, collective lawlessness driven by prejudice, intolerance and hate. To effectively curb this alarming phenomenon, the Parliament in the BNS has introduced Section 103(2), which explicitly criminalises mob-driven violence by stipulating that when a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the grounds of race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or similar factors, every member of the group shall face stringent punishment, including the death penalty or imprisonment for life, alongside a mandatory fine,” the court said on August 20.

Justice Vijaykumar A Patil directed Karnataka to formulate an interim compensation scheme for victims or the next of kin in mob violence and lynching cases. (Image enhanced using AI)

What happened in Mangaluru

According to the order, the alleged lynching incident took place on April 27, 2025, during a cricket match organised by ‘Amazing Friends Konguru, Kulashekara’ at Kallurti Temple, Kudupu. The court recorded that Ashraf allegedly raised a “Pakistan, Pakistan” slogan at the match. Several players, spectators and the accused followed him. He ran towards the road, fell and was allegedly surrounded and assaulted. He suffered blunt injuries and later died.

The state told the high court that the incident was initially reported as an unnatural death on April 27. During the investigation, it emerged as a mob-lynching case. An FIR was registered on April 28, 2025, and the chargesheet was filed on July 25, 2025.

‘Grave error’ on bail hearing

A key issue before the high court was whether the bail orders could be interfered with because Ashraf’s next of kin had not been given notice or an opportunity to oppose the applications. The court held that the sessions court had committed a “grave error” by failing to issue timely notice to the deceased’s next of kin and by not allowing them to object to the regular bail application.

However, the high court declined to cancel the bail. It noted that the chargesheet had already been filed and custodial interrogation was therefore no longer required. It also considered bail granted to other accused in connected matters after objections from the deceased’s next of kin had been heard.

The court further noted that there was no allegation that the accused had violated their bail conditions, tampered with witnesses or committed any further crime. It held, “The liberty of the accused cannot be curtailed merely on the ground of procedural lapse by the Court specially when there is no allegation of violation of bail conditions or misconduct.”

The high court reiterated the Supreme Court’s directions in Tehseen S Poonawalla vs Union of India, under which victims or the next of kin of deceased victims in mob violence and lynching cases must receive timely notice of court proceedings.

They must also be heard on applications for bail, discharge, release and parole, and allowed to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

The high court directed its registry to circulate the order to principal district judges and sessions judges for mandatory compliance. It also directed the concerned courts to raise objections where victims are not arrayed as parties in mob violence or lynching cases.

State gets three months for compensation scheme

The court found that Karnataka’s existing government order dated September 27, 2023 did not contain the required provision for interim compensation to victims or the next of kin of deceased victims.

The state government was directed to formulate a scheme for grant of interim compensation to the victim or the next of kin of the victim within three months of the August 20 order and file a compliance report before the high court.

The court also reiterated that mob violence and lynching cases should be tried by designated or fast-track courts and preferably concluded within six months from the date of cognisance.

The seven petitions were ultimately dismissed. The sessions court was directed to endeavour to complete the trial and pronounce judgment in a time-bound manner in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions.